Re: [kictanet] Thoughts on Kenya's National Broadband Strategy
Hi all, I have just gone through the recently launched National Broadband Strategy. Sadly, none of my submitted input (included below) was accomodated (even after confirmation from CCK that they had been received). I guess this is a sign of the times, because it seems that over recent years "public consultations" by CCK and Govt on ICT issues have been merely stage-managed exercises aimed at giving an appearance of inclusion, but in reality are merely rubber-stamping exercises which allow largely third party driven agendas (vendors, foreign govts) to take center stage and prioritization in our strategies, policies, laws etc... I guess I will just have to stop making the effort to "contribute" to these processes as it seems to be pointless and an exercise in futility. Hopefully others will have better luck? Have a good day, Brian On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Brian Munyao Longwe <blongwe@gmail.com>wrote:
I had shared these thoughts in ISOC-KE and someone asked if I would mind sharing them with KICTANET. Well, here goes:
------------
Is it right to explicitly name a particular technology within the context of such a high level strategy? Pg 6   the immediate plan to further deploy broadband through a nationwide LTE system
The language in principle 2 (pg 8) and principle 7 (pg 9) seem to be contradictory. While principle 2 emphasizes technology neutrality (a good thing), principle 7 in elaborating competitive use of technologies explicitly names fiber optic and wireless broadband. It is proposed that the language here be changed to distinguish between fixed and non-fixed media as alternatives for infrastructure
Pg 21 - the relationship between a pacemaker (for heart conditions) and content & applications is not immediately obvious - could this be the wrong kind of example to use in this section?
Pg 22 (Table 4) on the problem of an unstructured innovation chain; wouldn't it be better to aim at developing a National Innovation System - rather than simply seeking to "institutionalize the innovation value chain"? The current recommendations fall far short of *really* tackling the underlying issues and proposing sufficient interventions to address the problem in the medium to long term.
Pg 23 the figures related to mobile penetration should be updated with latest market estimates and not figures from 2011. Current estimates are at 100% mobile penetration. Also the percentage of *youth* is questionable as it is based on a 2005 study. Should statistics that are 8 years old be used in such an important document?
pg 26-32 Section 3.4 Policy, Legal & Regulatory Environment
While CCK has over the past 13 years of it's existence facilitated massive transformation with the information and communication technology sector in the country and the region as a whole. It could be argued that the Commission's mandate has become bloated over the years, leading to a "too many eggs in one basket" problem.
It could be recommended that specialized agencies be established to deal with essential issue that do not strictly fall under the regulatory mandate of CCK and may, in some cases create opportunity for conflict of interest. These include but are not limited to: Operation and Administration of the Universal Service Fund, Operation and Administration of cyber-security related units, consumer protection etc...
While it is evident and obvious that CCK has served and may continue to serve as an ideal "incubator" for these types of services/agencies. It is true that they encompass a potentially vast amount of work, especially within a national context and could be better served by specialized agencies that can focus time and resources and deal with issues in a focused and timely manner.
pg 33 Section 3.5.2
by specifically referring to a particular technology (in this case LTE) as a means to accomplishing the objectives of this strategy - it might appear that the strategy is biased towards particular vendors or operators and may not necessarily be taking the best interests of the marketplace and the greatest stakeholder - the citizen - into consideration. It is recommended that the language in this section be reworked to eliminate the mention of specific technologies.
The section on Financing and Investment should include recommendations on various incentives to promote activity in the area. Tax breaks, concessions, PPP proposals, allocations from various existing (and new) funds etc...
Section 4 Implementation
once again, specific reference to LTE may not be in the best interests of leaving the strategy open enought to allow for competing and maybe more affordable technologies that can achieve stated objectives.
Hi Brian, You raise a very important issue. I attended the broadband meeting and whereas it was elaborately organized there is a lot of discomfort that i will raise on this platform. Clearly it appears the multi stakeholder model is under serious attack and if we are not careful the gains we have made in the last 10 years in building an enviable ICT community Internationaly will go down the drain. I interacted with several technocrats and to my dismay majority of those in Civil Society Organisations that are meant to check the government are branded as trouble makers. Difference in opinion is treated as personal affront , worse still it was clear that our input no longer matters to put it bluntly from the few engagements i had this morning, we are resource persons. You may have noticed that COFEK raised a similar issue in a press release and i have just seen an email from a lister in which he was quoting the CS that some people are making noise in a corner which i found to be undiplomatic if at all it is true. You have spoken for many who are murmuring and i hope the Cabinet Secretary who is on this list takes note of this concerns, once goodwill is lost it might take time to recover it and this will result in stalled or worse still failed projects. We need meaningful engagement based on national aspirations not personal preferences and cronyism, i agree meaningless stakeholder consultations should be put to an end, we need a clear process of soliciting for public input, the same should show when the public views have been dropped and why? ever wondered why open data is still a myth to name but a few? Best Regards On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Brian Munyao Longwe <blongwe@gmail.com>wrote:
Hi all,
I have just gone through the recently launched National Broadband Strategy.
Sadly, none of my submitted input (included below) was accomodated (even after confirmation from CCK that they had been received). I guess this is a sign of the times, because it seems that over recent years "public consultations" by CCK and Govt on ICT issues have been merely stage-managed exercises aimed at giving an appearance of inclusion, but in reality are merely rubber-stamping exercises which allow largely third party driven agendas (vendors, foreign govts) to take center stage and prioritization in our strategies, policies, laws etc...
I guess I will just have to stop making the effort to "contribute" to these processes as it seems to be pointless and an exercise in futility. Hopefully others will have better luck?
Have a good day,
Brian
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Brian Munyao Longwe <blongwe@gmail.com>wrote:
I had shared these thoughts in ISOC-KE and someone asked if I would mind sharing them with KICTANET. Well, here goes:
------------
Is it right to explicitly name a particular technology within the context of such a high level strategy? Pg 6   the immediate plan to further deploy broadband through a nationwide LTE system
The language in principle 2 (pg 8) and principle 7 (pg 9) seem to be contradictory. While principle 2 emphasizes technology neutrality (a good thing), principle 7 in elaborating competitive use of technologies explicitly names fiber optic and wireless broadband. It is proposed that the language here be changed to distinguish between fixed and non-fixed media as alternatives for infrastructure
Pg 21 - the relationship between a pacemaker (for heart conditions) and content & applications is not immediately obvious - could this be the wrong kind of example to use in this section?
Pg 22 (Table 4) on the problem of an unstructured innovation chain; wouldn't it be better to aim at developing a National Innovation System - rather than simply seeking to "institutionalize the innovation value chain"? The current recommendations fall far short of *really* tackling the underlying issues and proposing sufficient interventions to address the problem in the medium to long term.
Pg 23 the figures related to mobile penetration should be updated with latest market estimates and not figures from 2011. Current estimates are at 100% mobile penetration. Also the percentage of *youth* is questionable as it is based on a 2005 study. Should statistics that are 8 years old be used in such an important document?
pg 26-32 Section 3.4 Policy, Legal & Regulatory Environment
While CCK has over the past 13 years of it's existence facilitated massive transformation with the information and communication technology sector in the country and the region as a whole. It could be argued that the Commission's mandate has become bloated over the years, leading to a "too many eggs in one basket" problem.
It could be recommended that specialized agencies be established to deal with essential issue that do not strictly fall under the regulatory mandate of CCK and may, in some cases create opportunity for conflict of interest. These include but are not limited to: Operation and Administration of the Universal Service Fund, Operation and Administration of cyber-security related units, consumer protection etc...
While it is evident and obvious that CCK has served and may continue to serve as an ideal "incubator" for these types of services/agencies. It is true that they encompass a potentially vast amount of work, especially within a national context and could be better served by specialized agencies that can focus time and resources and deal with issues in a focused and timely manner.
pg 33 Section 3.5.2
by specifically referring to a particular technology (in this case LTE) as a means to accomplishing the objectives of this strategy - it might appear that the strategy is biased towards particular vendors or operators and may not necessarily be taking the best interests of the marketplace and the greatest stakeholder - the citizen - into consideration. It is recommended that the language in this section be reworked to eliminate the mention of specific technologies.
The section on Financing and Investment should include recommendations on various incentives to promote activity in the area. Tax breaks, concessions, PPP proposals, allocations from various existing (and new) funds etc...
Section 4 Implementation
once again, specific reference to LTE may not be in the best interests of leaving the strategy open enought to allow for competing and maybe more affordable technologies that can achieve stated objectives.
_______________________________________________ isoc mailing list isoc@orion.my.co.ke http://orion.my.co.ke/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/isoc
-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otieno http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/
They are here. Let them respond. As for the Cabinet Secretary, we will judge him by performance not by statements. He should state at least three flagship goals he intends to achieve. James On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack@gmail.com>wrote:
Hi Brian,
You raise a very important issue. I attended the broadband meeting and whereas it was elaborately organized there is a lot of discomfort that i will raise on this platform.
Clearly it appears the multi stakeholder model is under serious attack and if we are not careful the gains we have made in the last 10 years in building an enviable ICT community Internationaly will go down the drain. I interacted with several technocrats and to my dismay majority of those in Civil Society Organisations that are meant to check the government are branded as trouble makers. Difference in opinion is treated as personal affront , worse still it was clear that our input no longer matters to put it bluntly from the few engagements i had this morning, we are resource persons. You may have noticed that COFEK raised a similar issue in a press release and i have just seen an email from a lister in which he was quoting the CS that some people are making noise in a corner which i found to be undiplomatic if at all it is true. You have spoken for many who are murmuring and i hope the Cabinet Secretary who is on this list takes note of this concerns, once goodwill is lost it might take time to recover it and this will result in stalled or worse still failed projects. We need meaningful engagement based on national aspirations not personal preferences and cronyism, i agree meaningless stakeholder consultations should be put to an end, we need a clear process of soliciting for public input, the same should show when the public views have been dropped and why? ever wondered why open data is still a myth to name but a few?
Best Regards
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Brian Munyao Longwe <blongwe@gmail.com>wrote:
Hi all,
I have just gone through the recently launched National Broadband Strategy.
Sadly, none of my submitted input (included below) was accomodated (even after confirmation from CCK that they had been received). I guess this is a sign of the times, because it seems that over recent years "public consultations" by CCK and Govt on ICT issues have been merely stage-managed exercises aimed at giving an appearance of inclusion, but in reality are merely rubber-stamping exercises which allow largely third party driven agendas (vendors, foreign govts) to take center stage and prioritization in our strategies, policies, laws etc...
I guess I will just have to stop making the effort to "contribute" to these processes as it seems to be pointless and an exercise in futility. Hopefully others will have better luck?
Have a good day,
Brian
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Brian Munyao Longwe <blongwe@gmail.com>wrote:
I had shared these thoughts in ISOC-KE and someone asked if I would mind sharing them with KICTANET. Well, here goes:
------------
Is it right to explicitly name a particular technology within the context of such a high level strategy? Pg 6   the immediate plan to further deploy broadband through a nationwide LTE system
The language in principle 2 (pg 8) and principle 7 (pg 9) seem to be contradictory. While principle 2 emphasizes technology neutrality (a good thing), principle 7 in elaborating competitive use of technologies explicitly names fiber optic and wireless broadband. It is proposed that the language here be changed to distinguish between fixed and non-fixed media as alternatives for infrastructure
Pg 21 - the relationship between a pacemaker (for heart conditions) and content & applications is not immediately obvious - could this be the wrong kind of example to use in this section?
Pg 22 (Table 4) on the problem of an unstructured innovation chain; wouldn't it be better to aim at developing a National Innovation System - rather than simply seeking to "institutionalize the innovation value chain"? The current recommendations fall far short of *really* tackling the underlying issues and proposing sufficient interventions to address the problem in the medium to long term.
Pg 23 the figures related to mobile penetration should be updated with latest market estimates and not figures from 2011. Current estimates are at 100% mobile penetration. Also the percentage of *youth* is questionable as it is based on a 2005 study. Should statistics that are 8 years old be used in such an important document?
pg 26-32 Section 3.4 Policy, Legal & Regulatory Environment
While CCK has over the past 13 years of it's existence facilitated massive transformation with the information and communication technology sector in the country and the region as a whole. It could be argued that the Commission's mandate has become bloated over the years, leading to a "too many eggs in one basket" problem.
It could be recommended that specialized agencies be established to deal with essential issue that do not strictly fall under the regulatory mandate of CCK and may, in some cases create opportunity for conflict of interest. These include but are not limited to: Operation and Administration of the Universal Service Fund, Operation and Administration of cyber-security related units, consumer protection etc...
While it is evident and obvious that CCK has served and may continue to serve as an ideal "incubator" for these types of services/agencies. It is true that they encompass a potentially vast amount of work, especially within a national context and could be better served by specialized agencies that can focus time and resources and deal with issues in a focused and timely manner.
pg 33 Section 3.5.2
by specifically referring to a particular technology (in this case LTE) as a means to accomplishing the objectives of this strategy - it might appear that the strategy is biased towards particular vendors or operators and may not necessarily be taking the best interests of the marketplace and the greatest stakeholder - the citizen - into consideration. It is recommended that the language in this section be reworked to eliminate the mention of specific technologies.
The section on Financing and Investment should include recommendations on various incentives to promote activity in the area. Tax breaks, concessions, PPP proposals, allocations from various existing (and new) funds etc...
Section 4 Implementation
once again, specific reference to LTE may not be in the best interests of leaving the strategy open enought to allow for competing and maybe more affordable technologies that can achieve stated objectives.
_______________________________________________ isoc mailing list isoc@orion.my.co.ke http://orion.my.co.ke/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/isoc
-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otieno http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/jgmbugua%40gmail.com
The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
How about the attached. My input to the so called "National Public Key Infrastructure Stakeholder Consultation" Despite personal phone calls which I received from both Dr. Ndemo and Paul Kukubo that I would receive a response, it seems that somewhere along the way - I was dismissed as a "noise-maker" - I tried to keep it quiet, now let me make some noise. I was also very disappointed to hear through the grapevine that some senior people said "Brian is only making noise because he doesn't have a job" along with the implication that I was seeking an appointment/assignment into the PKI project....disgusting.... Anyway, here are the attachments. Zero response to date - and I can promise you, zero change in the plans/design... On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 3:24 PM, James Mbugua <jgmbugua@gmail.com> wrote:
They are here. Let them respond.
As for the Cabinet Secretary, we will judge him by performance not by statements. He should state at least three flagship goals he intends to achieve.
James
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack@gmail.com>wrote:
Hi Brian,
You raise a very important issue. I attended the broadband meeting and whereas it was elaborately organized there is a lot of discomfort that i will raise on this platform.
Clearly it appears the multi stakeholder model is under serious attack and if we are not careful the gains we have made in the last 10 years in building an enviable ICT community Internationaly will go down the drain. I interacted with several technocrats and to my dismay majority of those in Civil Society Organisations that are meant to check the government are branded as trouble makers. Difference in opinion is treated as personal affront , worse still it was clear that our input no longer matters to put it bluntly from the few engagements i had this morning, we are resource persons. You may have noticed that COFEK raised a similar issue in a press release and i have just seen an email from a lister in which he was quoting the CS that some people are making noise in a corner which i found to be undiplomatic if at all it is true. You have spoken for many who are murmuring and i hope the Cabinet Secretary who is on this list takes note of this concerns, once goodwill is lost it might take time to recover it and this will result in stalled or worse still failed projects. We need meaningful engagement based on national aspirations not personal preferences and cronyism, i agree meaningless stakeholder consultations should be put to an end, we need a clear process of soliciting for public input, the same should show when the public views have been dropped and why? ever wondered why open data is still a myth to name but a few?
Best Regards
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Brian Munyao Longwe <blongwe@gmail.com>wrote:
Hi all,
I have just gone through the recently launched National Broadband Strategy.
Sadly, none of my submitted input (included below) was accomodated (even after confirmation from CCK that they had been received). I guess this is a sign of the times, because it seems that over recent years "public consultations" by CCK and Govt on ICT issues have been merely stage-managed exercises aimed at giving an appearance of inclusion, but in reality are merely rubber-stamping exercises which allow largely third party driven agendas (vendors, foreign govts) to take center stage and prioritization in our strategies, policies, laws etc...
I guess I will just have to stop making the effort to "contribute" to these processes as it seems to be pointless and an exercise in futility. Hopefully others will have better luck?
Have a good day,
Brian
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Brian Munyao Longwe <blongwe@gmail.com
wrote:
I had shared these thoughts in ISOC-KE and someone asked if I would mind sharing them with KICTANET. Well, here goes:
------------
Is it right to explicitly name a particular technology within the context of such a high level strategy? Pg 6   the immediate plan to further deploy broadband through a nationwide LTE system
The language in principle 2 (pg 8) and principle 7 (pg 9) seem to be contradictory. While principle 2 emphasizes technology neutrality (a good thing), principle 7 in elaborating competitive use of technologies explicitly names fiber optic and wireless broadband. It is proposed that the language here be changed to distinguish between fixed and non-fixed media as alternatives for infrastructure
Pg 21 - the relationship between a pacemaker (for heart conditions) and content & applications is not immediately obvious - could this be the wrong kind of example to use in this section?
Pg 22 (Table 4) on the problem of an unstructured innovation chain; wouldn't it be better to aim at developing a National Innovation System - rather than simply seeking to "institutionalize the innovation value chain"? The current recommendations fall far short of *really* tackling the underlying issues and proposing sufficient interventions to address the problem in the medium to long term.
Pg 23 the figures related to mobile penetration should be updated with latest market estimates and not figures from 2011. Current estimates are at 100% mobile penetration. Also the percentage of *youth* is questionable as it is based on a 2005 study. Should statistics that are 8 years old be used in such an important document?
pg 26-32 Section 3.4 Policy, Legal & Regulatory Environment
While CCK has over the past 13 years of it's existence facilitated massive transformation with the information and communication technology sector in the country and the region as a whole. It could be argued that the Commission's mandate has become bloated over the years, leading to a "too many eggs in one basket" problem.
It could be recommended that specialized agencies be established to deal with essential issue that do not strictly fall under the regulatory mandate of CCK and may, in some cases create opportunity for conflict of interest. These include but are not limited to: Operation and Administration of the Universal Service Fund, Operation and Administration of cyber-security related units, consumer protection etc...
While it is evident and obvious that CCK has served and may continue to serve as an ideal "incubator" for these types of services/agencies. It is true that they encompass a potentially vast amount of work, especially within a national context and could be better served by specialized agencies that can focus time and resources and deal with issues in a focused and timely manner.
pg 33 Section 3.5.2
by specifically referring to a particular technology (in this case LTE) as a means to accomplishing the objectives of this strategy - it might appear that the strategy is biased towards particular vendors or operators and may not necessarily be taking the best interests of the marketplace and the greatest stakeholder - the citizen - into consideration. It is recommended that the language in this section be reworked to eliminate the mention of specific technologies.
The section on Financing and Investment should include recommendations on various incentives to promote activity in the area. Tax breaks, concessions, PPP proposals, allocations from various existing (and new) funds etc...
Section 4 Implementation
once again, specific reference to LTE may not be in the best interests of leaving the strategy open enought to allow for competing and maybe more affordable technologies that can achieve stated objectives.
_______________________________________________ isoc mailing list isoc@orion.my.co.ke http://orion.my.co.ke/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/isoc
-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otieno http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/jgmbugua%40gmail.com
The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/blongwe%40gmail.com
The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
Hello, Hi Brian and the other key stakeholders and experts in the ICT industry: there is need to engage more with ICT officers and managers already working in the public sector...there is lots of written material, research papers, implementation papers, and write ups- truly rich content in the government of Kenya so as to get and gain first hand information and experience on what's on the ground in the public organizations.. Where we are as a country and ICT experts is not about Point of view, planning etc Kenyans are the best planners, and the plans exist. our need at the moment as a country and in major ICT projects is on implementation. being involved and providing tangible and specific solutions on implementation. Warm regards, I am happy to have joined the right forum,- currently I am hopeful that technology will not be blamed by organizations like IEBC and others on our watch. Lets get the plans already in place, empower and improve them as we quickly provide implementation, monitoring and evaluation tangible, specific, clear guidelines. Judy Muli Head ICT COB On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Brian Munyao Longwe <blongwe@gmail.com>wrote:
How about the attached. My input to the so called "National Public Key Infrastructure Stakeholder Consultation"
Despite personal phone calls which I received from both Dr. Ndemo and Paul Kukubo that I would receive a response, it seems that somewhere along the way - I was dismissed as a "noise-maker" - I tried to keep it quiet, now let me make some noise.
I was also very disappointed to hear through the grapevine that some senior people said "Brian is only making noise because he doesn't have a job" along with the implication that I was seeking an appointment/assignment into the PKI project....disgusting....
Anyway, here are the attachments. Zero response to date - and I can promise you, zero change in the plans/design...
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 3:24 PM, James Mbugua <jgmbugua@gmail.com> wrote:
They are here. Let them respond.
As for the Cabinet Secretary, we will judge him by performance not by statements. He should state at least three flagship goals he intends to achieve.
James
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi Brian,
You raise a very important issue. I attended the broadband meeting and whereas it was elaborately organized there is a lot of discomfort that i will raise on this platform.
Clearly it appears the multi stakeholder model is under serious attack and if we are not careful the gains we have made in the last 10 years in building an enviable ICT community Internationaly will go down the drain. I interacted with several technocrats and to my dismay majority of those in Civil Society Organisations that are meant to check the government are branded as trouble makers. Difference in opinion is treated as personal affront , worse still it was clear that our input no longer matters to put it bluntly from the few engagements i had this morning, we are resource persons. You may have noticed that COFEK raised a similar issue in a press release and i have just seen an email from a lister in which he was quoting the CS that some people are making noise in a corner which i found to be undiplomatic if at all it is true. You have spoken for many who are murmuring and i hope the Cabinet Secretary who is on this list takes note of this concerns, once goodwill is lost it might take time to recover it and this will result in stalled or worse still failed projects. We need meaningful engagement based on national aspirations not personal preferences and cronyism, i agree meaningless stakeholder consultations should be put to an end, we need a clear process of soliciting for public input, the same should show when the public views have been dropped and why? ever wondered why open data is still a myth to name but a few?
Best Regards
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Brian Munyao Longwe <blongwe@gmail.com>wrote:
Hi all,
I have just gone through the recently launched National Broadband Strategy.
Sadly, none of my submitted input (included below) was accomodated (even after confirmation from CCK that they had been received). I guess this is a sign of the times, because it seems that over recent years "public consultations" by CCK and Govt on ICT issues have been merely stage-managed exercises aimed at giving an appearance of inclusion, but in reality are merely rubber-stamping exercises which allow largely third party driven agendas (vendors, foreign govts) to take center stage and prioritization in our strategies, policies, laws etc...
I guess I will just have to stop making the effort to "contribute" to these processes as it seems to be pointless and an exercise in futility. Hopefully others will have better luck?
Have a good day,
Brian
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Brian Munyao Longwe < blongwe@gmail.com> wrote:
I had shared these thoughts in ISOC-KE and someone asked if I would mind sharing them with KICTANET. Well, here goes:
------------
Is it right to explicitly name a particular technology within the context of such a high level strategy? Pg 6   the immediate plan to further deploy broadband through a nationwide LTE system
The language in principle 2 (pg 8) and principle 7 (pg 9) seem to be contradictory. While principle 2 emphasizes technology neutrality (a good thing), principle 7 in elaborating competitive use of technologies explicitly names fiber optic and wireless broadband. It is proposed that the language here be changed to distinguish between fixed and non-fixed media as alternatives for infrastructure
Pg 21 - the relationship between a pacemaker (for heart conditions) and content & applications is not immediately obvious - could this be the wrong kind of example to use in this section?
Pg 22 (Table 4) on the problem of an unstructured innovation chain; wouldn't it be better to aim at developing a National Innovation System - rather than simply seeking to "institutionalize the innovation value chain"? The current recommendations fall far short of *really* tackling the underlying issues and proposing sufficient interventions to address the problem in the medium to long term.
Pg 23 the figures related to mobile penetration should be updated with latest market estimates and not figures from 2011. Current estimates are at 100% mobile penetration. Also the percentage of *youth* is questionable as it is based on a 2005 study. Should statistics that are 8 years old be used in such an important document?
pg 26-32 Section 3.4 Policy, Legal & Regulatory Environment
While CCK has over the past 13 years of it's existence facilitated massive transformation with the information and communication technology sector in the country and the region as a whole. It could be argued that the Commission's mandate has become bloated over the years, leading to a "too many eggs in one basket" problem.
It could be recommended that specialized agencies be established to deal with essential issue that do not strictly fall under the regulatory mandate of CCK and may, in some cases create opportunity for conflict of interest. These include but are not limited to: Operation and Administration of the Universal Service Fund, Operation and Administration of cyber-security related units, consumer protection etc...
While it is evident and obvious that CCK has served and may continue to serve as an ideal "incubator" for these types of services/agencies. It is true that they encompass a potentially vast amount of work, especially within a national context and could be better served by specialized agencies that can focus time and resources and deal with issues in a focused and timely manner.
pg 33 Section 3.5.2
by specifically referring to a particular technology (in this case LTE) as a means to accomplishing the objectives of this strategy - it might appear that the strategy is biased towards particular vendors or operators and may not necessarily be taking the best interests of the marketplace and the greatest stakeholder - the citizen - into consideration. It is recommended that the language in this section be reworked to eliminate the mention of specific technologies.
The section on Financing and Investment should include recommendations on various incentives to promote activity in the area. Tax breaks, concessions, PPP proposals, allocations from various existing (and new) funds etc...
Section 4 Implementation
once again, specific reference to LTE may not be in the best interests of leaving the strategy open enought to allow for competing and maybe more affordable technologies that can achieve stated objectives.
_______________________________________________ isoc mailing list isoc@orion.my.co.ke http://orion.my.co.ke/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/isoc
-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otieno http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/jgmbugua%40gmail.com
The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/blongwe%40gmail.com
The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/judym.muli%40gmail.com
The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
Dear Judy, If you truly knew my track record in national ICT development as well as the amount of effort I have freely given towards this cause over the past 19 years since my first responsibilities in the now defunct East African Internet Association (EAIA), then you might not really be asking me for patience. The problem we have, very simply put, is a human factor problem, some thoughts on this from me in e 140 Friday blog http://140friday.com/?p=485 Walubengo, it is not matoke that causes me to speak out, it is sadness at the depths to which we have fallen. I think it is only a matter of time before the public (ourselves and others) start crying out for the blood of the officers who will have led us as a country into a hole out of which we cannot climb. Sadly, Mblayo On Tuesday, July 23, 2013, Judy M. Muli wrote:
Hello,
Hi Brian and the other key stakeholders and experts in the ICT industry: there is need to engage more with ICT officers and managers already working in the public sector...there is lots of written material, research papers, implementation papers, and write ups- truly rich content in the government of Kenya so as to get and gain first hand information and experience on what's on the ground in the public organizations..
Where we are as a country and ICT experts is not about Point of view, planning etc Kenyans are the best planners, and the plans exist. our need at the moment as a country and in major ICT projects is on implementation. being involved and providing tangible and specific solutions on implementation.
Warm regards, I am happy to have joined the right forum,- currently I am hopeful that technology will not be blamed by organizations like IEBC and others on our watch. Lets get the plans already in place, empower and improve them as we quickly provide implementation, monitoring and evaluation tangible, specific, clear guidelines.
Judy Muli Head ICT COB
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Brian Munyao Longwe <blongwe@gmail.com<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'blongwe@gmail.com');>
wrote:
How about the attached. My input to the so called "National Public Key Infrastructure Stakeholder Consultation"
Despite personal phone calls which I received from both Dr. Ndemo and Paul Kukubo that I would receive a response, it seems that somewhere along the way - I was dismissed as a "noise-maker" - I tried to keep it quiet, now let me make some noise.
I was also very disappointed to hear through the grapevine that some senior people said "Brian is only making noise because he doesn't have a job" along with the implication that I was seeking an appointment/assignment into the PKI project....disgusting....
Anyway, here are the attachments. Zero response to date - and I can promise you, zero change in the plans/design...
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 3:24 PM, James Mbugua <jgmbugua@gmail.com> wrote:
They are here. Let them respond.
As for the Cabinet Secretary, we will judge him by performance not by statements. He should state at least three flagship goals he intends to achieve.
James
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi Brian,
You raise a very important issue. I attended the broadband meeting and whereas it was elaborately organized there is a lot of discomfort that i will raise on this platform.
Clearly it appears the multi stakeholder model is under serious attack and if we are not careful the gains we have made in the last 10 years in building an enviable ICT community Internationaly will go down the drain. I interacted with several technocrats and to my dismay majority of those in Civil Society Organisations that are meant to check the government are branded as trouble makers. Difference in opinion is treated as personal affront , worse still it was clear that our input no longer matters to put it bluntly from the few engagements i had this morning, we are resource persons. You may have noticed that COFEK raised a similar issue in a press release and i have just seen an email from a lister in which he was quoting the CS that some people are making noise in a corner which i found to be undiplomatic if at all it is true. You have spoken for many who are murmuring and i hope the Cabinet Secretary who is on this list takes note of this concerns, once goodwill is lost it might take time to recover it and this will result in stalled or worse still failed projects. We need meaningful engagement based on national aspirations not personal preferences and cronyism, i agree meaningless stakeholder consultations should be put to an end, we need a clear process of soliciting for public input, the same should show when the public views have been dropped and why? ever wondered why open data is still a myth to name but a few?
Best Regards
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Brian Munyao Longwe <blongwe@gmail.com>wrote:
Hi all,
I have just gone through the recently launched National Broadband Strategy.
Sadly, none of my submitted input (included below) was accomodated (even after confirmation from CCK that they had been received). I guess this is a sign of the times, because it seems that over recent years "public consultations" by CCK and Govt on ICT issues have been merely stage-managed exercises aimed at giving an appearance of inclusion, but in reality are merely rubber-stamping exercises which allow largely third party driven agendas (vendors, foreign govts) to take center stage and prioritization in our strategies, policies, laws etc...
I guess I will just have to stop making the effort to "contribute" to these processes as it
Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/judym.muli%40gmail.com
The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
Brian/Listers, Many thanks for your feedback on the National Broadband Strategy that was launched yesterday. The Commission does not disregard stakeholders’ input on the various regulatory issues that we subject to public and stakeholder comment and consultation. On the issue of the National Broadband Strategy, all submitted comments were analyzed by the Committee spearheading the process, and the analysis uploaded onto our website at http://www.cck.go.ke/links/consultations/published_responses/Analysis_of_Dra... The analysis shows the position that the Committee took in respect to each and every submitted input. The analysis was posted onto our website after conclusion of the consultations to apprise stakeholders on the decisions that the Committee took in respect to submitted comments/inputs. In light of the foregoing, comments to the effect that the CCK does not take on board stakeholders’ input have no basis whatsoever. Have a lovely day. Best regards, Christopher Wambua Manager – Communications Consumer and Public Affairs Department Communications Commission of Kenya P.O. Box 14448 NAIROBI 00800 Tel: +254 20 4242209 info@cck.go.ke<mailto:info@cck.go.ke> www.cck.go.ke<http://www.cck.go.ke> From: kictanet [mailto:kictanet-bounces+wambua=cck.go.ke@lists.kictanet.or.ke] On Behalf Of Brian Munyao Longwe Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 2:46 PM To: Wambua, Christopher Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions Subject: Re: [kictanet] Thoughts on Kenya's National Broadband Strategy Hi all, I have just gone through the recently launched National Broadband Strategy. Sadly, none of my submitted input (included below) was accomodated (even after confirmation from CCK that they had been received). I guess this is a sign of the times, because it seems that over recent years "public consultations" by CCK and Govt on ICT issues have been merely stage-managed exercises aimed at giving an appearance of inclusion, but in reality are merely rubber-stamping exercises which allow largely third party driven agendas (vendors, foreign govts) to take center stage and prioritization in our strategies, policies, laws etc... I guess I will just have to stop making the effort to "contribute" to these processes as it seems to be pointless and an exercise in futility. Hopefully others will have better luck? Have a good day, Brian On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Brian Munyao Longwe <blongwe@gmail.com<mailto:blongwe@gmail.com>> wrote: I had shared these thoughts in ISOC-KE and someone asked if I would mind sharing them with KICTANET. Well, here goes: ------------ Is it right to explicitly name a particular technology within the context of such a high level strategy? Pg 6 ¬† the immediate plan to further deploy broadband through a nationwide LTE system The language in principle 2 (pg 8) and principle 7 (pg 9) seem to be contradictory. While principle 2 emphasizes technology neutrality (a good thing), principle 7 in elaborating competitive use of technologies explicitly names fiber optic and wireless broadband. It is proposed that the language here be changed to distinguish between fixed and non-fixed media as alternatives for infrastructure Pg 21 - the relationship between a pacemaker (for heart conditions) and content & applications is not immediately obvious - could this be the wrong kind of example to use in this section? Pg 22 (Table 4) on the problem of an unstructured innovation chain; wouldn't it be better to aim at developing a National Innovation System - rather than simply seeking to "institutionalize the innovation value chain"? The current recommendations fall far short of *really* tackling the underlying issues and proposing sufficient interventions to address the problem in the medium to long term. Pg 23 the figures related to mobile penetration should be updated with latest market estimates and not figures from 2011. Current estimates are at 100% mobile penetration. Also the percentage of *youth* is questionable as it is based on a 2005 study. Should statistics that are 8 years old be used in such an important document? pg 26-32 Section 3.4 Policy, Legal & Regulatory Environment While CCK has over the past 13 years of it's existence facilitated massive transformation with the information and communication technology sector in the country and the region as a whole. It could be argued that the Commission's mandate has become bloated over the years, leading to a "too many eggs in one basket" problem. It could be recommended that specialized agencies be established to deal with essential issue that do not strictly fall under the regulatory mandate of CCK and may, in some cases create opportunity for conflict of interest. These include but are not limited to: Operation and Administration of the Universal Service Fund, Operation and Administration of cyber-security related units, consumer protection etc... While it is evident and obvious that CCK has served and may continue to serve as an ideal "incubator" for these types of services/agencies. It is true that they encompass a potentially vast amount of work, especially within a national context and could be better served by specialized agencies that can focus time and resources and deal with issues in a focused and timely manner. pg 33 Section 3.5.2 by specifically referring to a particular technology (in this case LTE) as a means to accomplishing the objectives of this strategy - it might appear that the strategy is biased towards particular vendors or operators and may not necessarily be taking the best interests of the marketplace and the greatest stakeholder - the citizen - into consideration. It is recommended that the language in this section be reworked to eliminate the mention of specific technologies. The section on Financing and Investment should include recommendations on various incentives to promote activity in the area. Tax breaks, concessions, PPP proposals, allocations from various existing (and new) funds etc... Section 4 Implementation once again, specific reference to LTE may not be in the best interests of leaving the strategy open enought to allow for competing and maybe more affordable technologies that can achieve stated objectives.
Wambua, this is great - the stakeholder analysis for the National Broadband initiative. I had not see it and it address the points I had raised regarding setting standards on how to deal with Stakeholder input. I wish you guys had done the same for the ITU/WCIT issues that were discussed in Dubai. We may just have avoided some battles :-) But meanwhile, it would be nice if a similar analysis/feedback is done for the following projects. 1. The recent stakeholder meeting at Karen on the Kenya Comm (amendment) Bill 2013 2. The National PKI project that Brian refers to 3. The KENIC reform process 4. Other similar policy/legislative/regulatory process that affect our lives walu. ________________________________ From: "Wambua, Christopher" <Wambua@cck.go.ke> To: jwalu@yahoo.com Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 8:00 AM Subject: Re: [kictanet] Thoughts on Kenya's National Broadband Strategy Brian/Listers, Many thanks for your feedback on the National Broadband Strategy that was launched yesterday. The Commission does not disregard stakeholders’ input on the various regulatory issues that we subject to public and stakeholder comment and consultation. On the issue of the National Broadband Strategy, all submitted comments were analyzed by the Committee spearheading the process, and the analysis uploaded onto our website at http://www.cck.go.ke/links/consultations/published_responses/Analysis_of_Dra... The analysis shows the position that the Committee took in respect to each and every submitted input. The analysis was posted onto our website after conclusion of the consultations to apprise stakeholders on the decisions that the Committee took in respect to submitted comments/inputs. In light of the foregoing, comments to the effect that the CCK does not take on board stakeholders’ input have no basis whatsoever. Have a lovely day. Best regards, Christopher Wambua Manager – Communications Consumer and Public Affairs Department Communications Commission of Kenya P.O. Box 14448 NAIROBI 00800 Tel: +254 20 4242209 info@cck.go.ke www.cck.go.ke From:kictanet [mailto:kictanet-bounces+wambua=cck.go.ke@lists.kictanet.or.ke] On Behalf Of Brian Munyao Longwe Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 2:46 PM To: Wambua, Christopher Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions Subject: Re: [kictanet] Thoughts on Kenya's National Broadband Strategy Hi all, I have just gone through the recently launched National Broadband Strategy. Sadly, none of my submitted input (included below) was accomodated (even after confirmation from CCK that they had been received). I guess this is a sign of the times, because it seems that over recent years "public consultations" by CCK and Govt on ICT issues have been merely stage-managed exercises aimed at giving an appearance of inclusion, but in reality are merely rubber-stamping exercises which allow largely third party driven agendas (vendors, foreign govts) to take center stage and prioritization in our strategies, policies, laws etc... I guess I will just have to stop making the effort to "contribute" to these processes as it seems to be pointless and an exercise in futility. Hopefully others will have better luck? Have a good day, Brian On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Brian Munyao Longwe <blongwe@gmail.com> wrote: I had shared these thoughts in ISOC-KE and someone asked if I would mind sharing them with KICTANET. Well, here goes: ------------ Is it right to explicitly name a particular technology within the context of such a high level strategy? Pg 6 ¬† the immediate plan to further deploy broadband through a nationwide LTE system The language in principle 2 (pg 8) and principle 7 (pg 9) seem to be contradictory. While principle 2 emphasizes technology neutrality (a good thing), principle 7 in elaborating competitive use of technologies explicitly names fiber optic and wireless broadband. It is proposed that the language here be changed to distinguish between fixed and non-fixed media as alternatives for infrastructure Pg 21 - the relationship between a pacemaker (for heart conditions) and content & applications is not immediately obvious - could this be the wrong kind of example to use in this section? Pg 22 (Table 4) on the problem of an unstructured innovation chain; wouldn't it be better to aim at developing a National Innovation System - rather than simply seeking to "institutionalize the innovation value chain"? The current recommendations fall far short of *really* tackling the underlying issues and proposing sufficient interventions to address the problem in the medium to long term. Pg 23 the figures related to mobile penetration should be updated with latest market estimates and not figures from 2011. Current estimates are at 100% mobile penetration. Also the percentage of *youth* is questionable as it is based on a 2005 study. Should statistics that are 8 years old be used in such an important document? pg 26-32 Section 3.4 Policy, Legal & Regulatory Environment While CCK has over the past 13 years of it's existence facilitated massive transformation with the information and communication technology sector in the country and the region as a whole. It could be argued that the Commission's mandate has become bloated over the years, leading to a "too many eggs in one basket" problem. It could be recommended that specialized agencies be established to deal with essential issue that do not strictly fall under the regulatory mandate of CCK and may, in some cases create opportunity for conflict of interest. These include but are not limited to: Operation and Administration of the Universal Service Fund, Operation and Administration of cyber-security related units, consumer protection etc... While it is evident and obvious that CCK has served and may continue to serve as an ideal "incubator" for these types of services/agencies. It is true that they encompass a potentially vast amount of work, especially within a national context and could be better served by specialized agencies that can focus time and resources and deal with issues in a focused and timely manner. pg 33 Section 3.5.2 by specifically referring to a particular technology (in this case LTE) as a means to accomplishing the objectives of this strategy - it might appear that the strategy is biased towards particular vendors or operators and may not necessarily be taking the best interests of the marketplace and the greatest stakeholder - the citizen - into consideration. It is recommended that the language in this section be reworked to eliminate the mention of specific technologies. The section on Financing and Investment should include recommendations on various incentives to promote activity in the area. Tax breaks, concessions, PPP proposals, allocations from various existing (and new) funds etc... Section 4 Implementation once again, specific reference to LTE may not be in the best interests of leaving the strategy open enought to allow for competing and maybe more affordable technologies that can achieve stated objectives. _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/jwalu%40yahoo.com The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development. KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
Mr. Wambua, Many thanks for this timely response and for the balanced response we appreciate. We also appreciate the wonderful reception and sumptuous breakfast, its a shame we are complaining loudly even after you took the trouble to feed us. I also take cognisance of the fact that we did not consume anything that excited our emotions or raised our passionometers as such it is good to appreciate the complaints and murmurings and use it to improve your stakeholder engagement process, i am glad you shook my hand which is a sign of good faith and the fact that you are open to our comments and criticisms i hope other technocrats will emulate your good example, it is good to note that the success we have achieved in the last ten years would not have come by without the contribution of CCK hence our gratitude. Allow me to delve into your response: 1) I concur with Mr. Walubengo's response and we look forwad to answers on the same, we appreciate the steps you have taken to address our concerns and we look forwad to further engagement on the same. 2) I am concerned that this call was made on 11 January 2013, that is wrong timing knowing the lifestyle of Kenyans granted the commitee may have been working under strict timelines. 3) I am also concerned that institutions such as Tespok, Cofek, ICAK,ISOC dont seem to be featuring sometimes it is based on how the call is made formal invitations are good. I would like to suggest that you map all stakeholders and engage them formally based on the value they can bring on the table, this way you will be able to leverage on crowdsourcing and ensure that the issues you advance are well embraced, for example TESPOK represents close to 30 organisations if not more that deal with broadband and related issues, whereas COFEK, ICAK and ISOC focus on consumer and public policy issues even though they might not sing praises from time to time. In short, kindly rethink your stakeholder engagement strategy. Have a great day and once again thank you for the candid response, On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Walubengo J <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote:
Wambua,
this is great - the stakeholder analysis for the National Broadband initiative. I had not see it and it address the points I had raised regarding setting standards on how to deal with Stakeholder input. I wish you guys had done the same for the ITU/WCIT issues that were discussed in Dubai. We may just have avoided some battles :-)
But meanwhile, it would be nice if a similar analysis/feedback is done for the following projects.
1. The recent stakeholder meeting at Karen on the Kenya Comm (amendment) Bill 2013 2. The National PKI project that Brian refers to 3. The KENIC reform process 4. Other similar policy/legislative/regulatory process that affect our lives
walu.
------------------------------ *From:* "Wambua, Christopher" <Wambua@cck.go.ke> *To:* jwalu@yahoo.com *Cc:* KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 24, 2013 8:00 AM
*Subject:* Re: [kictanet] Thoughts on Kenya's National Broadband Strategy
Brian/Listers,
Many thanks for your feedback on the National Broadband Strategy that was launched yesterday.
The Commission does not disregard stakeholders’ input on the various regulatory issues that we subject to public and stakeholder comment and consultation. On the issue of the National Broadband Strategy, all submitted comments were analyzed by the Committee spearheading the process, and the analysis uploaded onto our website at http://www.cck.go.ke/links/consultations/published_responses/Analysis_of_Dra...
The analysis shows the position that the Committee took in respect to each and every submitted input. The analysis was posted onto our website after conclusion of the consultations to apprise stakeholders on the decisions that the Committee took in respect to submitted comments/inputs.
In light of the foregoing, comments to the effect that the CCK does not take on board stakeholders’ input have no basis whatsoever. Have a lovely day.
Best regards,
*Christopher Wambua* *Manager – Communications* *Consumer and Public Affairs Department* *Communications Commission of Kenya* *P.O. Box 14448 NAIROBI 00800* *Tel: +254 20 4242209* *info@cck.go.ke* *www.cck.go.ke* * *
*From:* kictanet [mailto:kictanet-bounces+wambua= cck.go.ke@lists.kictanet.or.ke] *On Behalf Of *Brian Munyao Longwe *Sent:* Tuesday, July 23, 2013 2:46 PM *To:* Wambua, Christopher *Cc:* KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions *Subject:* Re: [kictanet] Thoughts on Kenya's National Broadband Strategy
Hi all,
I have just gone through the recently launched National Broadband Strategy.
Sadly, none of my submitted input (included below) was accomodated (even after confirmation from CCK that they had been received). I guess this is a sign of the times, because it seems that over recent years "public consultations" by CCK and Govt on ICT issues have been merely stage-managed exercises aimed at giving an appearance of inclusion, but in reality are merely rubber-stamping exercises which allow largely third party driven agendas (vendors, foreign govts) to take center stage and prioritization in our strategies, policies, laws etc...
I guess I will just have to stop making the effort to "contribute" to these processes as it seems to be pointless and an exercise in futility. Hopefully others will have better luck?
Have a good day,
Brian
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Brian Munyao Longwe <blongwe@gmail.com> wrote: I had shared these thoughts in ISOC-KE and someone asked if I would mind sharing them with KICTANET. Well, here goes:
------------
Is it right to explicitly name a particular technology within the context of such a high level strategy? Pg 6   the immediate plan to further deploy broadband through a nationwide LTE system
The language in principle 2 (pg 8) and principle 7 (pg 9) seem to be contradictory. While principle 2 emphasizes technology neutrality (a good thing), principle 7 in elaborating competitive use of technologies explicitly names fiber optic and wireless broadband. It is proposed that the language here be changed to distinguish between fixed and non-fixed media as alternatives for infrastructure
Pg 21 - the relationship between a pacemaker (for heart conditions) and content & applications is not immediately obvious - could this be the wrong kind of example to use in this section?
Pg 22 (Table 4) on the problem of an unstructured innovation chain; wouldn't it be better to aim at developing a National Innovation System - rather than simply seeking to "institutionalize the innovation value chain"? The current recommendations fall far short of *really* tackling the underlying issues and proposing sufficient interventions to address the problem in the medium to long term.
Pg 23 the figures related to mobile penetration should be updated with latest market estimates and not figures from 2011. Current estimates are at 100% mobile penetration. Also the percentage of *youth* is questionable as it is based on a 2005 study. Should statistics that are 8 years old be used in such an important document?
pg 26-32 Section 3.4 Policy, Legal & Regulatory Environment
While CCK has over the past 13 years of it's existence facilitated massive transformation with the information and communication technology sector in the country and the region as a whole. It could be argued that the Commission's mandate has become bloated over the years, leading to a "too many eggs in one basket" problem.
It could be recommended that specialized agencies be established to deal with essential issue that do not strictly fall under the regulatory mandate of CCK and may, in some cases create opportunity for conflict of interest. These include but are not limited to: Operation and Administration of the Universal Service Fund, Operation and Administration of cyber-security related units, consumer protection etc...
While it is evident and obvious that CCK has served and may continue to serve as an ideal "incubator" for these types of services/agencies. It is true that they encompass a potentially vast amount of work, especially within a national context and could be better served by specialized agencies that can focus time and resources and deal with issues in a focused and timely manner.
pg 33 Section 3.5.2
by specifically referring to a particular technology (in this case LTE) as a means to accomplishing the objectives of this strategy - it might appear that the strategy is biased towards particular vendors or operators and may not necessarily be taking the best interests of the marketplace and the greatest stakeholder - the citizen - into consideration. It is recommended that the language in this section be reworked to eliminate the mention of specific technologies.
The section on Financing and Investment should include recommendations on various incentives to promote activity in the area. Tax breaks, concessions, PPP proposals, allocations from various existing (and new) funds etc...
Section 4 Implementation
once again, specific reference to LTE may not be in the best interests of leaving the strategy open enought to allow for competing and maybe more affordable technologies that can achieve stated objectives.
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/jwalu%40yahoo.com
The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/otieno.barrack%40gmail...
The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otieno http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/
Barrack, Your comments are noted and appreciated. Christopher Wambua Manager – Communications Consumer and Public Affairs Department Communications Commission of Kenya P.O. Box 14448 NAIROBI 00800 Tel: +254 20 4242209 info@cck.go.ke<mailto:info@cck.go.ke> www.cck.go.ke<http://www.cck.go.ke> From: kictanet [mailto:kictanet-bounces+wambua=cck.go.ke@lists.kictanet.or.ke] On Behalf Of Barrack Otieno Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 10:38 AM To: Wambua, Christopher Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions; isoc@orion.my.co.ke Subject: Re: [kictanet] Thoughts on Kenya's National Broadband Strategy Mr. Wambua, Many thanks for this timely response and for the balanced response we appreciate. We also appreciate the wonderful reception and sumptuous breakfast, its a shame we are complaining loudly even after you took the trouble to feed us. I also take cognisance of the fact that we did not consume anything that excited our emotions or raised our passionometers as such it is good to appreciate the complaints and murmurings and use it to improve your stakeholder engagement process, i am glad you shook my hand which is a sign of good faith and the fact that you are open to our comments and criticisms i hope other technocrats will emulate your good example, it is good to note that the success we have achieved in the last ten years would not have come by without the contribution of CCK hence our gratitude. Allow me to delve into your response: 1) I concur with Mr. Walubengo's response and we look forwad to answers on the same, we appreciate the steps you have taken to address our concerns and we look forwad to further engagement on the same. 2) I am concerned that this call was made on 11 January 2013, that is wrong timing knowing the lifestyle of Kenyans granted the commitee may have been working under strict timelines. 3) I am also concerned that institutions such as Tespok, Cofek, ICAK,ISOC dont seem to be featuring sometimes it is based on how the call is made formal invitations are good. I would like to suggest that you map all stakeholders and engage them formally based on the value they can bring on the table, this way you will be able to leverage on crowdsourcing and ensure that the issues you advance are well embraced, for example TESPOK represents close to 30 organisations if not more that deal with broadband and related issues, whereas COFEK, ICAK and ISOC focus on consumer and public policy issues even though they might not sing praises from time to time. In short, kindly rethink your stakeholder engagement strategy. Have a great day and once again thank you for the candid response, On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Walubengo J <jwalu@yahoo.com<mailto:jwalu@yahoo.com>> wrote: Wambua, this is great - the stakeholder analysis for the National Broadband initiative. I had not see it and it address the points I had raised regarding setting standards on how to deal with Stakeholder input. I wish you guys had done the same for the ITU/WCIT issues that were discussed in Dubai. We may just have avoided some battles :-) But meanwhile, it would be nice if a similar analysis/feedback is done for the following projects. 1. The recent stakeholder meeting at Karen on the Kenya Comm (amendment) Bill 2013 2. The National PKI project that Brian refers to 3. The KENIC reform process 4. Other similar policy/legislative/regulatory process that affect our lives walu. ________________________________ From: "Wambua, Christopher" <Wambua@cck.go.ke<mailto:Wambua@cck.go.ke>> To: jwalu@yahoo.com<mailto:jwalu@yahoo.com> Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke<mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke>> Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 8:00 AM Subject: Re: [kictanet] Thoughts on Kenya's National Broadband Strategy Brian/Listers, Many thanks for your feedback on the National Broadband Strategy that was launched yesterday. The Commission does not disregard stakeholders’ input on the various regulatory issues that we subject to public and stakeholder comment and consultation. On the issue of the National Broadband Strategy, all submitted comments were analyzed by the Committee spearheading the process, and the analysis uploaded onto our website at http://www.cck.go.ke/links/consultations/published_responses/Analysis_of_Dra... The analysis shows the position that the Committee took in respect to each and every submitted input. The analysis was posted onto our website after conclusion of the consultations to apprise stakeholders on the decisions that the Committee took in respect to submitted comments/inputs. In light of the foregoing, comments to the effect that the CCK does not take on board stakeholders’ input have no basis whatsoever. Have a lovely day. Best regards, Christopher Wambua Manager – Communications Consumer and Public Affairs Department Communications Commission of Kenya P.O. Box 14448 NAIROBI 00800 Tel: +254 20 4242209 info@cck.go.ke<mailto:info@cck.go.ke> www.cck.go.ke<http://www.cck.go.ke/> From: kictanet [mailto:kictanet-bounces+wambua<mailto:kictanet-bounces%2Bwambua>=cck.go.ke@lists.kictanet.or.ke<mailto:cck.go.ke@lists.kictanet.or.ke>] On Behalf Of Brian Munyao Longwe Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 2:46 PM To: Wambua, Christopher Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions Subject: Re: [kictanet] Thoughts on Kenya's National Broadband Strategy Hi all, I have just gone through the recently launched National Broadband Strategy. Sadly, none of my submitted input (included below) was accomodated (even after confirmation from CCK that they had been received). I guess this is a sign of the times, because it seems that over recent years "public consultations" by CCK and Govt on ICT issues have been merely stage-managed exercises aimed at giving an appearance of inclusion, but in reality are merely rubber-stamping exercises which allow largely third party driven agendas (vendors, foreign govts) to take center stage and prioritization in our strategies, policies, laws etc... I guess I will just have to stop making the effort to "contribute" to these processes as it seems to be pointless and an exercise in futility. Hopefully others will have better luck? Have a good day, Brian On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Brian Munyao Longwe <blongwe@gmail.com<mailto:blongwe@gmail.com>> wrote: I had shared these thoughts in ISOC-KE and someone asked if I would mind sharing them with KICTANET. Well, here goes: ------------ Is it right to explicitly name a particular technology within the context of such a high level strategy? Pg 6 ¬† the immediate plan to further deploy broadband through a nationwide LTE system The language in principle 2 (pg 8) and principle 7 (pg 9) seem to be contradictory. While principle 2 emphasizes technology neutrality (a good thing), principle 7 in elaborating competitive use of technologies explicitly names fiber optic and wireless broadband. It is proposed that the language here be changed to distinguish between fixed and non-fixed media as alternatives for infrastructure Pg 21 - the relationship between a pacemaker (for heart conditions) and content & applications is not immediately obvious - could this be the wrong kind of example to use in this section? Pg 22 (Table 4) on the problem of an unstructured innovation chain; wouldn't it be better to aim at developing a National Innovation System - rather than simply seeking to "institutionalize the innovation value chain"? The current recommendations fall far short of *really* tackling the underlying issues and proposing sufficient interventions to address the problem in the medium to long term. Pg 23 the figures related to mobile penetration should be updated with latest market estimates and not figures from 2011. Current estimates are at 100% mobile penetration. Also the percentage of *youth* is questionable as it is based on a 2005 study. Should statistics that are 8 years old be used in such an important document? pg 26-32 Section 3.4 Policy, Legal & Regulatory Environment While CCK has over the past 13 years of it's existence facilitated massive transformation with the information and communication technology sector in the country and the region as a whole. It could be argued that the Commission's mandate has become bloated over the years, leading to a "too many eggs in one basket" problem. It could be recommended that specialized agencies be established to deal with essential issue that do not strictly fall under the regulatory mandate of CCK and may, in some cases create opportunity for conflict of interest. These include but are not limited to: Operation and Administration of the Universal Service Fund, Operation and Administration of cyber-security related units, consumer protection etc... While it is evident and obvious that CCK has served and may continue to serve as an ideal "incubator" for these types of services/agencies. It is true that they encompass a potentially vast amount of work, especially within a national context and could be better served by specialized agencies that can focus time and resources and deal with issues in a focused and timely manner. pg 33 Section 3.5.2 by specifically referring to a particular technology (in this case LTE) as a means to accomplishing the objectives of this strategy - it might appear that the strategy is biased towards particular vendors or operators and may not necessarily be taking the best interests of the marketplace and the greatest stakeholder - the citizen - into consideration. It is recommended that the language in this section be reworked to eliminate the mention of specific technologies. The section on Financing and Investment should include recommendations on various incentives to promote activity in the area. Tax breaks, concessions, PPP proposals, allocations from various existing (and new) funds etc... Section 4 Implementation once again, specific reference to LTE may not be in the best interests of leaving the strategy open enought to allow for competing and maybe more affordable technologies that can achieve stated objectives. _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke<mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/jwalu%40yahoo.com The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development. KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications. _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke<mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/otieno.barrack%40gmail... The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development. KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications. -- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otieno http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/
Walu, This is noted and most appreciated. We actually endeavor to do this. See http://www.cck.go.ke/links/consultations/published_responses.html But of course there is room for improvement. I will engage the Working Group spearheading the review of the ICT Sector regulatory framework on your proposal and revert in due course. Best regards, Christopher Wambua Manager – Communications Consumer and Public Affairs Department Communications Commission of Kenya P.O. Box 14448 NAIROBI 00800 Tel: +254 20 4242209 info@cck.go.ke<mailto:info@cck.go.ke> www.cck.go.ke<http://www.cck.go.ke> From: Walubengo J [mailto:jwalu@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 9:43 AM To: Wambua, Christopher Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions Subject: Re: [kictanet] Thoughts on Kenya's National Broadband Strategy Wambua, this is great - the stakeholder analysis for the National Broadband initiative. I had not see it and it address the points I had raised regarding setting standards on how to deal with Stakeholder input. I wish you guys had done the same for the ITU/WCIT issues that were discussed in Dubai. We may just have avoided some battles :-) But meanwhile, it would be nice if a similar analysis/feedback is done for the following projects. 1. The recent stakeholder meeting at Karen on the Kenya Comm (amendment) Bill 2013 2. The National PKI project that Brian refers to 3. The KENIC reform process 4. Other similar policy/legislative/regulatory process that affect our lives walu. ________________________________ From: "Wambua, Christopher" <Wambua@cck.go.ke<mailto:Wambua@cck.go.ke>> To: jwalu@yahoo.com<mailto:jwalu@yahoo.com> Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke<mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke>> Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 8:00 AM Subject: Re: [kictanet] Thoughts on Kenya's National Broadband Strategy Brian/Listers, Many thanks for your feedback on the National Broadband Strategy that was launched yesterday. The Commission does not disregard stakeholders’ input on the various regulatory issues that we subject to public and stakeholder comment and consultation. On the issue of the National Broadband Strategy, all submitted comments were analyzed by the Committee spearheading the process, and the analysis uploaded onto our website at http://www.cck.go.ke/links/consultations/published_responses/Analysis_of_Dra... The analysis shows the position that the Committee took in respect to each and every submitted input. The analysis was posted onto our website after conclusion of the consultations to apprise stakeholders on the decisions that the Committee took in respect to submitted comments/inputs. In light of the foregoing, comments to the effect that the CCK does not take on board stakeholders’ input have no basis whatsoever. Have a lovely day. Best regards, Christopher Wambua Manager – Communications Consumer and Public Affairs Department Communications Commission of Kenya P.O. Box 14448 NAIROBI 00800 Tel: +254 20 4242209 info@cck.go.ke<mailto:info@cck.go.ke> www.cck.go.ke<http://www.cck.go.ke/> From: kictanet [mailto:kictanet-bounces+wambua=cck.go.ke@lists.kictanet.or.ke]<mailto:[mailto:kictanet-bounces+wambua=cck.go.ke@lists.kictanet.or.ke]> On Behalf Of Brian Munyao Longwe Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 2:46 PM To: Wambua, Christopher Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions Subject: Re: [kictanet] Thoughts on Kenya's National Broadband Strategy Hi all, I have just gone through the recently launched National Broadband Strategy. Sadly, none of my submitted input (included below) was accomodated (even after confirmation from CCK that they had been received). I guess this is a sign of the times, because it seems that over recent years "public consultations" by CCK and Govt on ICT issues have been merely stage-managed exercises aimed at giving an appearance of inclusion, but in reality are merely rubber-stamping exercises which allow largely third party driven agendas (vendors, foreign govts) to take center stage and prioritization in our strategies, policies, laws etc... I guess I will just have to stop making the effort to "contribute" to these processes as it seems to be pointless and an exercise in futility. Hopefully others will have better luck? Have a good day, Brian On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Brian Munyao Longwe <blongwe@gmail.com<mailto:blongwe@gmail.com>> wrote: I had shared these thoughts in ISOC-KE and someone asked if I would mind sharing them with KICTANET. Well, here goes: ------------ Is it right to explicitly name a particular technology within the context of such a high level strategy? Pg 6 ¬† the immediate plan to further deploy broadband through a nationwide LTE system The language in principle 2 (pg 8) and principle 7 (pg 9) seem to be contradictory. While principle 2 emphasizes technology neutrality (a good thing), principle 7 in elaborating competitive use of technologies explicitly names fiber optic and wireless broadband. It is proposed that the language here be changed to distinguish between fixed and non-fixed media as alternatives for infrastructure Pg 21 - the relationship between a pacemaker (for heart conditions) and content & applications is not immediately obvious - could this be the wrong kind of example to use in this section? Pg 22 (Table 4) on the problem of an unstructured innovation chain; wouldn't it be better to aim at developing a National Innovation System - rather than simply seeking to "institutionalize the innovation value chain"? The current recommendations fall far short of *really* tackling the underlying issues and proposing sufficient interventions to address the problem in the medium to long term. Pg 23 the figures related to mobile penetration should be updated with latest market estimates and not figures from 2011. Current estimates are at 100% mobile penetration. Also the percentage of *youth* is questionable as it is based on a 2005 study. Should statistics that are 8 years old be used in such an important document? pg 26-32 Section 3.4 Policy, Legal & Regulatory Environment While CCK has over the past 13 years of it's existence facilitated massive transformation with the information and communication technology sector in the country and the region as a whole. It could be argued that the Commission's mandate has become bloated over the years, leading to a "too many eggs in one basket" problem. It could be recommended that specialized agencies be established to deal with essential issue that do not strictly fall under the regulatory mandate of CCK and may, in some cases create opportunity for conflict of interest. These include but are not limited to: Operation and Administration of the Universal Service Fund, Operation and Administration of cyber-security related units, consumer protection etc... While it is evident and obvious that CCK has served and may continue to serve as an ideal "incubator" for these types of services/agencies. It is true that they encompass a potentially vast amount of work, especially within a national context and could be better served by specialized agencies that can focus time and resources and deal with issues in a focused and timely manner. pg 33 Section 3.5.2 by specifically referring to a particular technology (in this case LTE) as a means to accomplishing the objectives of this strategy - it might appear that the strategy is biased towards particular vendors or operators and may not necessarily be taking the best interests of the marketplace and the greatest stakeholder - the citizen - into consideration. It is recommended that the language in this section be reworked to eliminate the mention of specific technologies. The section on Financing and Investment should include recommendations on various incentives to promote activity in the area. Tax breaks, concessions, PPP proposals, allocations from various existing (and new) funds etc... Section 4 Implementation once again, specific reference to LTE may not be in the best interests of leaving the strategy open enought to allow for competing and maybe more affordable technologies that can achieve stated objectives. _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke<mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/jwalu%40yahoo.com The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development. KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
Wambua Let me also add my voice in commending your good offices for your quick responses. Even though sometimes we may feel ignored I am sure this is not the case as you have indicated here. With this kind of engagement we can turn perceived 'enmity' or personal differences into constructive engagement going forward. Thank you once again. Regards *Ali Hussein* *CEO, 3mice interactive media ltd* *Partner, Telemedia Africa Ltd * Tel: +254713601113 Twitter: @AliHKassim Skype: abu-jomo LinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim<http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim> Blog: www.alyhussein.com Any information of a personal nature expressed in this email are purely mine and do not necessarily reflect the official positions of the organizations that I work with. On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Wambua, Christopher <Wambua@cck.go.ke>wrote:
Walu,****
** **
This is noted and most appreciated. We actually endeavor to do this. See http://www.cck.go.ke/links/consultations/published_responses.html ****
** **
But of course there is room for improvement. I will engage the Working Group spearheading the review of the ICT Sector regulatory framework on your proposal and revert in due course. ****
** **
Best regards,****
** **
*Christopher Wambua*
*Manager – Communications*
*Consumer and Public Affairs Department*
*Communications Commission of Kenya*
*P.O. Box 14448 NAIROBI 00800*
*Tel: +254 20 4242209*
*info@cck.go.ke*
*www.cck.go.ke*
* *
** **
** **
*From:* Walubengo J [mailto:jwalu@yahoo.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, July 24, 2013 9:43 AM
*To:* Wambua, Christopher *Cc:* KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions *Subject:* Re: [kictanet] Thoughts on Kenya's National Broadband Strategy* ***
** **
Wambua,
this is great - the stakeholder analysis for the National Broadband initiative. I had not see it and it address the points I had raised regarding setting standards on how to deal with Stakeholder input. I wish you guys had done the same for the ITU/WCIT issues that were discussed in Dubai. We may just have avoided some battles :-)
But meanwhile, it would be nice if a similar analysis/feedback is done for the following projects.
1. The recent stakeholder meeting at Karen on the Kenya Comm (amendment) Bill 2013 2. The National PKI project that Brian refers to 3. The KENIC reform process 4. Other similar policy/legislative/regulatory process that affect our lives
walu.****
** ** ------------------------------
*From:* "Wambua, Christopher" <Wambua@cck.go.ke> *To:* jwalu@yahoo.com *Cc:* KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 24, 2013 8:00 AM *Subject:* Re: [kictanet] Thoughts on Kenya's National Broadband Strategy* ***
** **
Brian/Listers,****
****
Many thanks for your feedback on the National Broadband Strategy that was launched yesterday. ****
****
The Commission does not disregard stakeholders’ input on the various regulatory issues that we subject to public and stakeholder comment and consultation. On the issue of the National Broadband Strategy, all submitted comments were analyzed by the Committee spearheading the process, and the analysis uploaded onto our website at http://www.cck.go.ke/links/consultations/published_responses/Analysis_of_Dra... ****
****
The analysis shows the position that the Committee took in respect to each and every submitted input. The analysis was posted onto our website after conclusion of the consultations to apprise stakeholders on the decisions that the Committee took in respect to submitted comments/inputs. ****
****
In light of the foregoing, comments to the effect that the CCK does not take on board stakeholders’ input have no basis whatsoever. Have a lovely day. ****
****
Best regards,****
****
*Christopher Wambua*****
*Manager – Communications*****
*Consumer and Public Affairs Department*****
*Communications Commission of Kenya*****
*P.O. Box 14448 NAIROBI 00800*****
*Tel: +254 20 4242209*****
*info@cck.go.ke*****
*www.cck.go.ke*****
* *****
****
****
*From:* kictanet [mailto:kictanet-bounces+wambua=cck.go.ke@lists.kictanet.or.ke] *On Behalf Of *Brian Munyao Longwe *Sent:* Tuesday, July 23, 2013 2:46 PM *To:* Wambua, Christopher *Cc:* KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions *Subject:* Re: [kictanet] Thoughts on Kenya's National Broadband Strategy* ***
****
Hi all,****
****
I have just gone through the recently launched National Broadband Strategy. ****
****
Sadly, none of my submitted input (included below) was accomodated (even after confirmation from CCK that they had been received). I guess this is a sign of the times, because it seems that over recent years "public consultations" by CCK and Govt on ICT issues have been merely stage-managed exercises aimed at giving an appearance of inclusion, but in reality are merely rubber-stamping exercises which allow largely third party driven agendas (vendors, foreign govts) to take center stage and prioritization in our strategies, policies, laws etc...****
****
I guess I will just have to stop making the effort to "contribute" to these processes as it seems to be pointless and an exercise in futility. Hopefully others will have better luck?****
****
Have a good day,****
****
Brian****
****
****
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Brian Munyao Longwe <blongwe@gmail.com> wrote:****
I had shared these thoughts in ISOC-KE and someone asked if I would mind sharing them with KICTANET. Well, here goes:
------------
Is it right to explicitly name a particular technology within the context of such a high level strategy? Pg 6   the immediate plan to further deploy broadband through a nationwide LTE system
The language in principle 2 (pg 8) and principle 7 (pg 9) seem to be contradictory. While principle 2 emphasizes technology neutrality (a good thing), principle 7 in elaborating competitive use of technologies explicitly names fiber optic and wireless broadband. It is proposed that the language here be changed to distinguish between fixed and non-fixed media as alternatives for infrastructure
Pg 21 - the relationship between a pacemaker (for heart conditions) and content & applications is not immediately obvious - could this be the wrong kind of example to use in this section?
Pg 22 (Table 4) on the problem of an unstructured innovation chain; wouldn't it be better to aim at developing a National Innovation System - rather than simply seeking to "institutionalize the innovation value chain"? The current recommendations fall far short of *really* tackling the underlying issues and proposing sufficient interventions to address the problem in the medium to long term.
Pg 23 the figures related to mobile penetration should be updated with latest market estimates and not figures from 2011. Current estimates are at 100% mobile penetration. Also the percentage of *youth* is questionable as it is based on a 2005 study. Should statistics that are 8 years old be used in such an important document?
pg 26-32 Section 3.4 Policy, Legal & Regulatory Environment
While CCK has over the past 13 years of it's existence facilitated massive transformation with the information and communication technology sector in the country and the region as a whole. It could be argued that the Commission's mandate has become bloated over the years, leading to a "too many eggs in one basket" problem.
It could be recommended that specialized agencies be established to deal with essential issue that do not strictly fall under the regulatory mandate of CCK and may, in some cases create opportunity for conflict of interest. These include but are not limited to: Operation and Administration of the Universal Service Fund, Operation and Administration of cyber-security related units, consumer protection etc...
While it is evident and obvious that CCK has served and may continue to serve as an ideal "incubator" for these types of services/agencies. It is true that they encompass a potentially vast amount of work, especially within a national context and could be better served by specialized agencies that can focus time and resources and deal with issues in a focused and timely manner.
pg 33 Section 3.5.2
by specifically referring to a particular technology (in this case LTE) as a means to accomplishing the objectives of this strategy - it might appear that the strategy is biased towards particular vendors or operators and may not necessarily be taking the best interests of the marketplace and the greatest stakeholder - the citizen - into consideration. It is recommended that the language in this section be reworked to eliminate the mention of specific technologies.
The section on Financing and Investment should include recommendations on various incentives to promote activity in the area. Tax breaks, concessions, PPP proposals, allocations from various existing (and new) funds etc...
Section 4 Implementation
once again, specific reference to LTE may not be in the best interests of leaving the strategy open enought to allow for competing and maybe more affordable technologies that can achieve stated objectives.
****
****
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/jwalu%40yahoo.com
The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.****
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/info%40alyhussein.com
The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
Hussein, You are most welcome Ali. Christopher Wambua Manager – Communications Consumer and Public Affairs Department Communications Commission of Kenya P.O. Box 14448 NAIROBI 00800 Tel: +254 20 4242209 info@cck.go.ke<mailto:info@cck.go.ke> www.cck.go.ke<http://www.cck.go.ke> From: Ali Hussein [mailto:ali@hussein.me.ke] Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 11:11 AM To: Wambua, Christopher Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions Subject: Re: [kictanet] Thoughts on Kenya's National Broadband Strategy Wambua Let me also add my voice in commending your good offices for your quick responses. Even though sometimes we may feel ignored I am sure this is not the case as you have indicated here. With this kind of engagement we can turn perceived 'enmity' or personal differences into constructive engagement going forward. Thank you once again. Regards Ali Hussein CEO, 3mice interactive media ltd Partner, Telemedia Africa Ltd Tel: +254713601113 Twitter: @AliHKassim Skype: abu-jomo LinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim Blog: www.alyhussein.com<http://www.alyhussein.com> Any information of a personal nature expressed in this email are purely mine and do not necessarily reflect the official positions of the organizations that I work with. On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Wambua, Christopher <Wambua@cck.go.ke<mailto:Wambua@cck.go.ke>> wrote: Walu, This is noted and most appreciated. We actually endeavor to do this. See http://www.cck.go.ke/links/consultations/published_responses.html But of course there is room for improvement. I will engage the Working Group spearheading the review of the ICT Sector regulatory framework on your proposal and revert in due course. Best regards, Christopher Wambua Manager – Communications Consumer and Public Affairs Department Communications Commission of Kenya P.O. Box 14448 NAIROBI 00800 Tel: +254 20 4242209 info@cck.go.ke<mailto:info@cck.go.ke> www.cck.go.ke<http://www.cck.go.ke> From: Walubengo J [mailto:jwalu@yahoo.com<mailto:jwalu@yahoo.com>] Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 9:43 AM To: Wambua, Christopher Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions Subject: Re: [kictanet] Thoughts on Kenya's National Broadband Strategy Wambua, this is great - the stakeholder analysis for the National Broadband initiative. I had not see it and it address the points I had raised regarding setting standards on how to deal with Stakeholder input. I wish you guys had done the same for the ITU/WCIT issues that were discussed in Dubai. We may just have avoided some battles :-) But meanwhile, it would be nice if a similar analysis/feedback is done for the following projects. 1. The recent stakeholder meeting at Karen on the Kenya Comm (amendment) Bill 2013 2. The National PKI project that Brian refers to 3. The KENIC reform process 4. Other similar policy/legislative/regulatory process that affect our lives walu. ________________________________ From: "Wambua, Christopher" <Wambua@cck.go.ke<mailto:Wambua@cck.go.ke>> To: jwalu@yahoo.com<mailto:jwalu@yahoo.com> Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke<mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke>> Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 8:00 AM Subject: Re: [kictanet] Thoughts on Kenya's National Broadband Strategy Brian/Listers, Many thanks for your feedback on the National Broadband Strategy that was launched yesterday. The Commission does not disregard stakeholders’ input on the various regulatory issues that we subject to public and stakeholder comment and consultation. On the issue of the National Broadband Strategy, all submitted comments were analyzed by the Committee spearheading the process, and the analysis uploaded onto our website at http://www.cck.go.ke/links/consultations/published_responses/Analysis_of_Dra... The analysis shows the position that the Committee took in respect to each and every submitted input. The analysis was posted onto our website after conclusion of the consultations to apprise stakeholders on the decisions that the Committee took in respect to submitted comments/inputs. In light of the foregoing, comments to the effect that the CCK does not take on board stakeholders’ input have no basis whatsoever. Have a lovely day. Best regards, Christopher Wambua Manager – Communications Consumer and Public Affairs Department Communications Commission of Kenya P.O. Box 14448 NAIROBI 00800 Tel: +254 20 4242209 info@cck.go.ke<mailto:info@cck.go.ke> www.cck.go.ke<http://www.cck.go.ke/> From: kictanet [mailto:kictanet-bounces+wambua=cck.go.ke@lists.kictanet.or.ke]<mailto:[mailto:kictanet-bounces+wambua=cck.go.ke@lists.kictanet.or.ke]> On Behalf Of Brian Munyao Longwe Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 2:46 PM To: Wambua, Christopher Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions Subject: Re: [kictanet] Thoughts on Kenya's National Broadband Strategy Hi all, I have just gone through the recently launched National Broadband Strategy. Sadly, none of my submitted input (included below) was accomodated (even after confirmation from CCK that they had been received). I guess this is a sign of the times, because it seems that over recent years "public consultations" by CCK and Govt on ICT issues have been merely stage-managed exercises aimed at giving an appearance of inclusion, but in reality are merely rubber-stamping exercises which allow largely third party driven agendas (vendors, foreign govts) to take center stage and prioritization in our strategies, policies, laws etc... I guess I will just have to stop making the effort to "contribute" to these processes as it seems to be pointless and an exercise in futility. Hopefully others will have better luck? Have a good day, Brian On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Brian Munyao Longwe <blongwe@gmail.com<mailto:blongwe@gmail.com>> wrote: I had shared these thoughts in ISOC-KE and someone asked if I would mind sharing them with KICTANET. Well, here goes: ------------ Is it right to explicitly name a particular technology within the context of such a high level strategy? Pg 6 ¬† the immediate plan to further deploy broadband through a nationwide LTE system The language in principle 2 (pg 8) and principle 7 (pg 9) seem to be contradictory. While principle 2 emphasizes technology neutrality (a good thing), principle 7 in elaborating competitive use of technologies explicitly names fiber optic and wireless broadband. It is proposed that the language here be changed to distinguish between fixed and non-fixed media as alternatives for infrastructure Pg 21 - the relationship between a pacemaker (for heart conditions) and content & applications is not immediately obvious - could this be the wrong kind of example to use in this section? Pg 22 (Table 4) on the problem of an unstructured innovation chain; wouldn't it be better to aim at developing a National Innovation System - rather than simply seeking to "institutionalize the innovation value chain"? The current recommendations fall far short of *really* tackling the underlying issues and proposing sufficient interventions to address the problem in the medium to long term. Pg 23 the figures related to mobile penetration should be updated with latest market estimates and not figures from 2011. Current estimates are at 100% mobile penetration. Also the percentage of *youth* is questionable as it is based on a 2005 study. Should statistics that are 8 years old be used in such an important document? pg 26-32 Section 3.4 Policy, Legal & Regulatory Environment While CCK has over the past 13 years of it's existence facilitated massive transformation with the information and communication technology sector in the country and the region as a whole. It could be argued that the Commission's mandate has become bloated over the years, leading to a "too many eggs in one basket" problem. It could be recommended that specialized agencies be established to deal with essential issue that do not strictly fall under the regulatory mandate of CCK and may, in some cases create opportunity for conflict of interest. These include but are not limited to: Operation and Administration of the Universal Service Fund, Operation and Administration of cyber-security related units, consumer protection etc... While it is evident and obvious that CCK has served and may continue to serve as an ideal "incubator" for these types of services/agencies. It is true that they encompass a potentially vast amount of work, especially within a national context and could be better served by specialized agencies that can focus time and resources and deal with issues in a focused and timely manner. pg 33 Section 3.5.2 by specifically referring to a particular technology (in this case LTE) as a means to accomplishing the objectives of this strategy - it might appear that the strategy is biased towards particular vendors or operators and may not necessarily be taking the best interests of the marketplace and the greatest stakeholder - the citizen - into consideration. It is recommended that the language in this section be reworked to eliminate the mention of specific technologies. The section on Financing and Investment should include recommendations on various incentives to promote activity in the area. Tax breaks, concessions, PPP proposals, allocations from various existing (and new) funds etc... Section 4 Implementation once again, specific reference to LTE may not be in the best interests of leaving the strategy open enought to allow for competing and maybe more affordable technologies that can achieve stated objectives. _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke<mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/jwalu%40yahoo.com The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development. KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications. _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke<mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/info%40alyhussein.com The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development. KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
Dear Wambua, Thank you so very much for your response on this. I personally really appreciate your approachability, good communication and rapid response on matters CCK. Thank you also for pointing out the analysis of inputs for the broadband strategy. The link is actually indicated in the strategy document itself as http://www.cck.go.ke/links/consultations/published_responses/ , however, when you go to that page, there is no sign of the analysis in the list - I checked before penning my email crying about being ignored :) Please ask your web people to ensure that the document (and any others that might be missing) is linked on the page? Best regards, Brian ps I will now take time to go through the analysis - and will continue to devote energy towards our consultations :) On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 8:00 AM, Wambua, Christopher <Wambua@cck.go.ke>wrote:
Brian/Listers,****
** **
Many thanks for your feedback on the National Broadband Strategy that was launched yesterday. ****
** **
The Commission does not disregard stakeholders’ input on the various regulatory issues that we subject to public and stakeholder comment and consultation. On the issue of the National Broadband Strategy, all submitted comments were analyzed by the Committee spearheading the process, and the analysis uploaded onto our website at http://www.cck.go.ke/links/consultations/published_responses/Analysis_of_Dra... ****
** **
The analysis shows the position that the Committee took in respect to each and every submitted input. The analysis was posted onto our website after conclusion of the consultations to apprise stakeholders on the decisions that the Committee took in respect to submitted comments/inputs. ****
** **
In light of the foregoing, comments to the effect that the CCK does not take on board stakeholders’ input have no basis whatsoever. Have a lovely day. ****
** **
Best regards,****
** **
*Christopher Wambua*
*Manager – Communications*
*Consumer and Public Affairs Department*
*Communications Commission of Kenya*
*P.O. Box 14448 NAIROBI 00800*
*Tel: +254 20 4242209*
*info@cck.go.ke*
*www.cck.go.ke*
* *
** **
** **
*From:* kictanet [mailto:kictanet-bounces+wambua= cck.go.ke@lists.kictanet.or.ke] *On Behalf Of *Brian Munyao Longwe *Sent:* Tuesday, July 23, 2013 2:46 PM
*To:* Wambua, Christopher *Cc:* KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions *Subject:* Re: [kictanet] Thoughts on Kenya's National Broadband Strategy* ***
** **
Hi all,****
** **
I have just gone through the recently launched National Broadband Strategy. ****
** **
Sadly, none of my submitted input (included below) was accomodated (even after confirmation from CCK that they had been received). I guess this is a sign of the times, because it seems that over recent years "public consultations" by CCK and Govt on ICT issues have been merely stage-managed exercises aimed at giving an appearance of inclusion, but in reality are merely rubber-stamping exercises which allow largely third party driven agendas (vendors, foreign govts) to take center stage and prioritization in our strategies, policies, laws etc...****
** **
I guess I will just have to stop making the effort to "contribute" to these processes as it seems to be pointless and an exercise in futility. Hopefully others will have better luck?****
** **
Have a good day,****
** **
Brian****
** **
** **
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Brian Munyao Longwe <blongwe@gmail.com> wrote:****
I had shared these thoughts in ISOC-KE and someone asked if I would mind sharing them with KICTANET. Well, here goes:
------------
Is it right to explicitly name a particular technology within the context of such a high level strategy? Pg 6   the immediate plan to further deploy broadband through a nationwide LTE system
The language in principle 2 (pg 8) and principle 7 (pg 9) seem to be contradictory. While principle 2 emphasizes technology neutrality (a good thing), principle 7 in elaborating competitive use of technologies explicitly names fiber optic and wireless broadband. It is proposed that the language here be changed to distinguish between fixed and non-fixed media as alternatives for infrastructure
Pg 21 - the relationship between a pacemaker (for heart conditions) and content & applications is not immediately obvious - could this be the wrong kind of example to use in this section?
Pg 22 (Table 4) on the problem of an unstructured innovation chain; wouldn't it be better to aim at developing a National Innovation System - rather than simply seeking to "institutionalize the innovation value chain"? The current recommendations fall far short of *really* tackling the underlying issues and proposing sufficient interventions to address the problem in the medium to long term.
Pg 23 the figures related to mobile penetration should be updated with latest market estimates and not figures from 2011. Current estimates are at 100% mobile penetration. Also the percentage of *youth* is questionable as it is based on a 2005 study. Should statistics that are 8 years old be used in such an important document?
pg 26-32 Section 3.4 Policy, Legal & Regulatory Environment
While CCK has over the past 13 years of it's existence facilitated massive transformation with the information and communication technology sector in the country and the region as a whole. It could be argued that the Commission's mandate has become bloated over the years, leading to a "too many eggs in one basket" problem.
It could be recommended that specialized agencies be established to deal with essential issue that do not strictly fall under the regulatory mandate of CCK and may, in some cases create opportunity for conflict of interest. These include but are not limited to: Operation and Administration of the Universal Service Fund, Operation and Administration of cyber-security related units, consumer protection etc...
While it is evident and obvious that CCK has served and may continue to serve as an ideal "incubator" for these types of services/agencies. It is true that they encompass a potentially vast amount of work, especially within a national context and could be better served by specialized agencies that can focus time and resources and deal with issues in a focused and timely manner.
pg 33 Section 3.5.2
by specifically referring to a particular technology (in this case LTE) as a means to accomplishing the objectives of this strategy - it might appear that the strategy is biased towards particular vendors or operators and may not necessarily be taking the best interests of the marketplace and the greatest stakeholder - the citizen - into consideration. It is recommended that the language in this section be reworked to eliminate the mention of specific technologies.
The section on Financing and Investment should include recommendations on various incentives to promote activity in the area. Tax breaks, concessions, PPP proposals, allocations from various existing (and new) funds etc...
Section 4 Implementation
once again, specific reference to LTE may not be in the best interests of leaving the strategy open enought to allow for competing and maybe more affordable technologies that can achieve stated objectives.
****
** **
Brian, You are most welcome. I shall have the problem addressed asap. Christopher Wambua Manager – Communications Consumer and Public Affairs Department Communications Commission of Kenya P.O. Box 14448 NAIROBI 00800 Tel: +254 20 4242209 info@cck.go.ke<mailto:info@cck.go.ke> www.cck.go.ke<http://www.cck.go.ke> From: Brian Munyao Longwe [mailto:blongwe@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 10:22 AM To: Wambua, Christopher Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions Subject: Re: [kictanet] Thoughts on Kenya's National Broadband Strategy Dear Wambua, Thank you so very much for your response on this. I personally really appreciate your approachability, good communication and rapid response on matters CCK. Thank you also for pointing out the analysis of inputs for the broadband strategy. The link is actually indicated in the strategy document itself as http://www.cck.go.ke/links/consultations/published_responses/ , however, when you go to that page, there is no sign of the analysis in the list - I checked before penning my email crying about being ignored :) Please ask your web people to ensure that the document (and any others that might be missing) is linked on the page? Best regards, Brian ps I will now take time to go through the analysis - and will continue to devote energy towards our consultations :) On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 8:00 AM, Wambua, Christopher <Wambua@cck.go.ke<mailto:Wambua@cck.go.ke>> wrote: Brian/Listers, Many thanks for your feedback on the National Broadband Strategy that was launched yesterday. The Commission does not disregard stakeholders’ input on the various regulatory issues that we subject to public and stakeholder comment and consultation. On the issue of the National Broadband Strategy, all submitted comments were analyzed by the Committee spearheading the process, and the analysis uploaded onto our website at http://www.cck.go.ke/links/consultations/published_responses/Analysis_of_Dra... The analysis shows the position that the Committee took in respect to each and every submitted input. The analysis was posted onto our website after conclusion of the consultations to apprise stakeholders on the decisions that the Committee took in respect to submitted comments/inputs. In light of the foregoing, comments to the effect that the CCK does not take on board stakeholders’ input have no basis whatsoever. Have a lovely day. Best regards, Christopher Wambua Manager – Communications Consumer and Public Affairs Department Communications Commission of Kenya P.O. Box 14448 NAIROBI 00800 Tel: +254 20 4242209<tel:%2B254%2020%204242209> info@cck.go.ke<mailto:info@cck.go.ke> www.cck.go.ke<http://www.cck.go.ke> From: kictanet [mailto:kictanet-bounces+wambua<mailto:kictanet-bounces%2Bwambua>=cck.go.ke@lists.kictanet.or.ke<mailto:cck.go.ke@lists.kictanet.or.ke>] On Behalf Of Brian Munyao Longwe Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 2:46 PM To: Wambua, Christopher Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions Subject: Re: [kictanet] Thoughts on Kenya's National Broadband Strategy Hi all, I have just gone through the recently launched National Broadband Strategy. Sadly, none of my submitted input (included below) was accomodated (even after confirmation from CCK that they had been received). I guess this is a sign of the times, because it seems that over recent years "public consultations" by CCK and Govt on ICT issues have been merely stage-managed exercises aimed at giving an appearance of inclusion, but in reality are merely rubber-stamping exercises which allow largely third party driven agendas (vendors, foreign govts) to take center stage and prioritization in our strategies, policies, laws etc... I guess I will just have to stop making the effort to "contribute" to these processes as it seems to be pointless and an exercise in futility. Hopefully others will have better luck? Have a good day, Brian On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Brian Munyao Longwe <blongwe@gmail.com<mailto:blongwe@gmail.com>> wrote: I had shared these thoughts in ISOC-KE and someone asked if I would mind sharing them with KICTANET. Well, here goes: ------------ Is it right to explicitly name a particular technology within the context of such a high level strategy? Pg 6 ¬† the immediate plan to further deploy broadband through a nationwide LTE system The language in principle 2 (pg 8) and principle 7 (pg 9) seem to be contradictory. While principle 2 emphasizes technology neutrality (a good thing), principle 7 in elaborating competitive use of technologies explicitly names fiber optic and wireless broadband. It is proposed that the language here be changed to distinguish between fixed and non-fixed media as alternatives for infrastructure Pg 21 - the relationship between a pacemaker (for heart conditions) and content & applications is not immediately obvious - could this be the wrong kind of example to use in this section? Pg 22 (Table 4) on the problem of an unstructured innovation chain; wouldn't it be better to aim at developing a National Innovation System - rather than simply seeking to "institutionalize the innovation value chain"? The current recommendations fall far short of *really* tackling the underlying issues and proposing sufficient interventions to address the problem in the medium to long term. Pg 23 the figures related to mobile penetration should be updated with latest market estimates and not figures from 2011. Current estimates are at 100% mobile penetration. Also the percentage of *youth* is questionable as it is based on a 2005 study. Should statistics that are 8 years old be used in such an important document? pg 26-32 Section 3.4 Policy, Legal & Regulatory Environment While CCK has over the past 13 years of it's existence facilitated massive transformation with the information and communication technology sector in the country and the region as a whole. It could be argued that the Commission's mandate has become bloated over the years, leading to a "too many eggs in one basket" problem. It could be recommended that specialized agencies be established to deal with essential issue that do not strictly fall under the regulatory mandate of CCK and may, in some cases create opportunity for conflict of interest. These include but are not limited to: Operation and Administration of the Universal Service Fund, Operation and Administration of cyber-security related units, consumer protection etc... While it is evident and obvious that CCK has served and may continue to serve as an ideal "incubator" for these types of services/agencies. It is true that they encompass a potentially vast amount of work, especially within a national context and could be better served by specialized agencies that can focus time and resources and deal with issues in a focused and timely manner. pg 33 Section 3.5.2 by specifically referring to a particular technology (in this case LTE) as a means to accomplishing the objectives of this strategy - it might appear that the strategy is biased towards particular vendors or operators and may not necessarily be taking the best interests of the marketplace and the greatest stakeholder - the citizen - into consideration. It is recommended that the language in this section be reworked to eliminate the mention of specific technologies. The section on Financing and Investment should include recommendations on various incentives to promote activity in the area. Tax breaks, concessions, PPP proposals, allocations from various existing (and new) funds etc... Section 4 Implementation once again, specific reference to LTE may not be in the best interests of leaving the strategy open enought to allow for competing and maybe more affordable technologies that can achieve stated objectives.
Chris, Is there a timeframe to provide comments? When does the window close? Edith From: kictanet [mailto:kictanet-bounces+eadera=idrc.ca@lists.kictanet.or.ke] On Behalf Of Wambua, Christopher Sent: July 24, 2013 8:00 AM To: Edith Adera Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions Subject: Re: [kictanet] Thoughts on Kenya's National Broadband Strategy Importance: High Brian/Listers, Many thanks for your feedback on the National Broadband Strategy that was launched yesterday. The Commission does not disregard stakeholders’ input on the various regulatory issues that we subject to public and stakeholder comment and consultation. On the issue of the National Broadband Strategy, all submitted comments were analyzed by the Committee spearheading the process, and the analysis uploaded onto our website at http://www.cck.go.ke/links/consultations/published_responses/Analysis_of_Dra... The analysis shows the position that the Committee took in respect to each and every submitted input. The analysis was posted onto our website after conclusion of the consultations to apprise stakeholders on the decisions that the Committee took in respect to submitted comments/inputs. In light of the foregoing, comments to the effect that the CCK does not take on board stakeholders’ input have no basis whatsoever. Have a lovely day. Best regards, Christopher Wambua Manager – Communications Consumer and Public Affairs Department Communications Commission of Kenya P.O. Box 14448 NAIROBI 00800 Tel: +254 20 4242209 info@cck.go.ke<mailto:info@cck.go.ke> www.cck.go.ke<http://www.cck.go.ke> From: kictanet [mailto:kictanet-bounces+wambua=cck.go.ke@lists.kictanet.or.ke]<mailto:[mailto:kictanet-bounces+wambua=cck.go.ke@lists.kictanet.or.ke]> On Behalf Of Brian Munyao Longwe Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 2:46 PM To: Wambua, Christopher Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions Subject: Re: [kictanet] Thoughts on Kenya's National Broadband Strategy Hi all, I have just gone through the recently launched National Broadband Strategy. Sadly, none of my submitted input (included below) was accomodated (even after confirmation from CCK that they had been received). I guess this is a sign of the times, because it seems that over recent years "public consultations" by CCK and Govt on ICT issues have been merely stage-managed exercises aimed at giving an appearance of inclusion, but in reality are merely rubber-stamping exercises which allow largely third party driven agendas (vendors, foreign govts) to take center stage and prioritization in our strategies, policies, laws etc... I guess I will just have to stop making the effort to "contribute" to these processes as it seems to be pointless and an exercise in futility. Hopefully others will have better luck? Have a good day, Brian On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Brian Munyao Longwe <blongwe@gmail.com<mailto:blongwe@gmail.com>> wrote: I had shared these thoughts in ISOC-KE and someone asked if I would mind sharing them with KICTANET. Well, here goes: ------------ Is it right to explicitly name a particular technology within the context of such a high level strategy? Pg 6 ¬† the immediate plan to further deploy broadband through a nationwide LTE system The language in principle 2 (pg 8) and principle 7 (pg 9) seem to be contradictory. While principle 2 emphasizes technology neutrality (a good thing), principle 7 in elaborating competitive use of technologies explicitly names fiber optic and wireless broadband. It is proposed that the language here be changed to distinguish between fixed and non-fixed media as alternatives for infrastructure Pg 21 - the relationship between a pacemaker (for heart conditions) and content & applications is not immediately obvious - could this be the wrong kind of example to use in this section? Pg 22 (Table 4) on the problem of an unstructured innovation chain; wouldn't it be better to aim at developing a National Innovation System - rather than simply seeking to "institutionalize the innovation value chain"? The current recommendations fall far short of *really* tackling the underlying issues and proposing sufficient interventions to address the problem in the medium to long term. Pg 23 the figures related to mobile penetration should be updated with latest market estimates and not figures from 2011. Current estimates are at 100% mobile penetration. Also the percentage of *youth* is questionable as it is based on a 2005 study. Should statistics that are 8 years old be used in such an important document? pg 26-32 Section 3.4 Policy, Legal & Regulatory Environment While CCK has over the past 13 years of it's existence facilitated massive transformation with the information and communication technology sector in the country and the region as a whole. It could be argued that the Commission's mandate has become bloated over the years, leading to a "too many eggs in one basket" problem. It could be recommended that specialized agencies be established to deal with essential issue that do not strictly fall under the regulatory mandate of CCK and may, in some cases create opportunity for conflict of interest. These include but are not limited to: Operation and Administration of the Universal Service Fund, Operation and Administration of cyber-security related units, consumer protection etc... While it is evident and obvious that CCK has served and may continue to serve as an ideal "incubator" for these types of services/agencies. It is true that they encompass a potentially vast amount of work, especially within a national context and could be better served by specialized agencies that can focus time and resources and deal with issues in a focused and timely manner. pg 33 Section 3.5.2 by specifically referring to a particular technology (in this case LTE) as a means to accomplishing the objectives of this strategy - it might appear that the strategy is biased towards particular vendors or operators and may not necessarily be taking the best interests of the marketplace and the greatest stakeholder - the citizen - into consideration. It is recommended that the language in this section be reworked to eliminate the mention of specific technologies. The section on Financing and Investment should include recommendations on various incentives to promote activity in the area. Tax breaks, concessions, PPP proposals, allocations from various existing (and new) funds etc... Section 4 Implementation once again, specific reference to LTE may not be in the best interests of leaving the strategy open enought to allow for competing and maybe more affordable technologies that can achieve stated objectives.
Edith, We usually provide the timelines for the consultations through the public notice published in the press, and the kictanet list. Christopher Wambua Manager – Communications Consumer and Public Affairs Department Communications Commission of Kenya P.O. Box 14448 NAIROBI 00800 Tel: +254 20 4242209 info@cck.go.ke<mailto:info@cck.go.ke> www.cck.go.ke<http://www.cck.go.ke> From: Edith Adera [mailto:eadera@idrc.ca] Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 12:31 PM To: Wambua, Christopher Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions Subject: RE: [kictanet] Thoughts on Kenya's National Broadband Strategy Chris, Is there a timeframe to provide comments? When does the window close? Edith From: kictanet [mailto:kictanet-bounces+eadera=idrc.ca@lists.kictanet.or.ke]<mailto:[mailto:kictanet-bounces+eadera=idrc.ca@lists.kictanet.or.ke]> On Behalf Of Wambua, Christopher Sent: July 24, 2013 8:00 AM To: Edith Adera Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions Subject: Re: [kictanet] Thoughts on Kenya's National Broadband Strategy Importance: High Brian/Listers, Many thanks for your feedback on the National Broadband Strategy that was launched yesterday. The Commission does not disregard stakeholders’ input on the various regulatory issues that we subject to public and stakeholder comment and consultation. On the issue of the National Broadband Strategy, all submitted comments were analyzed by the Committee spearheading the process, and the analysis uploaded onto our website at http://www.cck.go.ke/links/consultations/published_responses/Analysis_of_Dra... The analysis shows the position that the Committee took in respect to each and every submitted input. The analysis was posted onto our website after conclusion of the consultations to apprise stakeholders on the decisions that the Committee took in respect to submitted comments/inputs. In light of the foregoing, comments to the effect that the CCK does not take on board stakeholders’ input have no basis whatsoever. Have a lovely day. Best regards, Christopher Wambua Manager – Communications Consumer and Public Affairs Department Communications Commission of Kenya P.O. Box 14448 NAIROBI 00800 Tel: +254 20 4242209 info@cck.go.ke<mailto:info@cck.go.ke> www.cck.go.ke<http://www.cck.go.ke> From: kictanet [mailto:kictanet-bounces+wambua=cck.go.ke@lists.kictanet.or.ke]<mailto:[mailto:kictanet-bounces+wambua=cck.go.ke@lists.kictanet.or.ke]> On Behalf Of Brian Munyao Longwe Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 2:46 PM To: Wambua, Christopher Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions Subject: Re: [kictanet] Thoughts on Kenya's National Broadband Strategy Hi all, I have just gone through the recently launched National Broadband Strategy. Sadly, none of my submitted input (included below) was accomodated (even after confirmation from CCK that they had been received). I guess this is a sign of the times, because it seems that over recent years "public consultations" by CCK and Govt on ICT issues have been merely stage-managed exercises aimed at giving an appearance of inclusion, but in reality are merely rubber-stamping exercises which allow largely third party driven agendas (vendors, foreign govts) to take center stage and prioritization in our strategies, policies, laws etc... I guess I will just have to stop making the effort to "contribute" to these processes as it seems to be pointless and an exercise in futility. Hopefully others will have better luck? Have a good day, Brian On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Brian Munyao Longwe <blongwe@gmail.com<mailto:blongwe@gmail.com>> wrote: I had shared these thoughts in ISOC-KE and someone asked if I would mind sharing them with KICTANET. Well, here goes: ------------ Is it right to explicitly name a particular technology within the context of such a high level strategy? Pg 6 ¬† the immediate plan to further deploy broadband through a nationwide LTE system The language in principle 2 (pg 8) and principle 7 (pg 9) seem to be contradictory. While principle 2 emphasizes technology neutrality (a good thing), principle 7 in elaborating competitive use of technologies explicitly names fiber optic and wireless broadband. It is proposed that the language here be changed to distinguish between fixed and non-fixed media as alternatives for infrastructure Pg 21 - the relationship between a pacemaker (for heart conditions) and content & applications is not immediately obvious - could this be the wrong kind of example to use in this section? Pg 22 (Table 4) on the problem of an unstructured innovation chain; wouldn't it be better to aim at developing a National Innovation System - rather than simply seeking to "institutionalize the innovation value chain"? The current recommendations fall far short of *really* tackling the underlying issues and proposing sufficient interventions to address the problem in the medium to long term. Pg 23 the figures related to mobile penetration should be updated with latest market estimates and not figures from 2011. Current estimates are at 100% mobile penetration. Also the percentage of *youth* is questionable as it is based on a 2005 study. Should statistics that are 8 years old be used in such an important document? pg 26-32 Section 3.4 Policy, Legal & Regulatory Environment While CCK has over the past 13 years of it's existence facilitated massive transformation with the information and communication technology sector in the country and the region as a whole. It could be argued that the Commission's mandate has become bloated over the years, leading to a "too many eggs in one basket" problem. It could be recommended that specialized agencies be established to deal with essential issue that do not strictly fall under the regulatory mandate of CCK and may, in some cases create opportunity for conflict of interest. These include but are not limited to: Operation and Administration of the Universal Service Fund, Operation and Administration of cyber-security related units, consumer protection etc... While it is evident and obvious that CCK has served and may continue to serve as an ideal "incubator" for these types of services/agencies. It is true that they encompass a potentially vast amount of work, especially within a national context and could be better served by specialized agencies that can focus time and resources and deal with issues in a focused and timely manner. pg 33 Section 3.5.2 by specifically referring to a particular technology (in this case LTE) as a means to accomplishing the objectives of this strategy - it might appear that the strategy is biased towards particular vendors or operators and may not necessarily be taking the best interests of the marketplace and the greatest stakeholder - the citizen - into consideration. It is recommended that the language in this section be reworked to eliminate the mention of specific technologies. The section on Financing and Investment should include recommendations on various incentives to promote activity in the area. Tax breaks, concessions, PPP proposals, allocations from various existing (and new) funds etc... Section 4 Implementation once again, specific reference to LTE may not be in the best interests of leaving the strategy open enought to allow for competing and maybe more affordable technologies that can achieve stated objectives.
Chris, What’s is for this specific consultation? Edith From: Wambua, Christopher [mailto:Wambua@cck.go.ke] Sent: July 24, 2013 1:18 PM To: Edith Adera Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions Subject: RE: [kictanet] Thoughts on Kenya's National Broadband Strategy Edith, We usually provide the timelines for the consultations through the public notice published in the press, and the kictanet list. Christopher Wambua Manager – Communications Consumer and Public Affairs Department Communications Commission of Kenya P.O. Box 14448 NAIROBI 00800 Tel: +254 20 4242209 info@cck.go.ke<mailto:info@cck.go.ke> www.cck.go.ke<http://www.cck.go.ke> From: Edith Adera [mailto:eadera@idrc.ca]<mailto:[mailto:eadera@idrc.ca]> Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 12:31 PM To: Wambua, Christopher Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions Subject: RE: [kictanet] Thoughts on Kenya's National Broadband Strategy Chris, Is there a timeframe to provide comments? When does the window close? Edith From: kictanet [mailto:kictanet-bounces+eadera=idrc.ca@lists.kictanet.or.ke]<mailto:[mailto:kictanet-bounces+eadera=idrc.ca@lists.kictanet.or.ke]> On Behalf Of Wambua, Christopher Sent: July 24, 2013 8:00 AM To: Edith Adera Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions Subject: Re: [kictanet] Thoughts on Kenya's National Broadband Strategy Importance: High Brian/Listers, Many thanks for your feedback on the National Broadband Strategy that was launched yesterday. The Commission does not disregard stakeholders’ input on the various regulatory issues that we subject to public and stakeholder comment and consultation. On the issue of the National Broadband Strategy, all submitted comments were analyzed by the Committee spearheading the process, and the analysis uploaded onto our website at http://www.cck.go.ke/links/consultations/published_responses/Analysis_of_Dra... The analysis shows the position that the Committee took in respect to each and every submitted input. The analysis was posted onto our website after conclusion of the consultations to apprise stakeholders on the decisions that the Committee took in respect to submitted comments/inputs. In light of the foregoing, comments to the effect that the CCK does not take on board stakeholders’ input have no basis whatsoever. Have a lovely day. Best regards, Christopher Wambua Manager – Communications Consumer and Public Affairs Department Communications Commission of Kenya P.O. Box 14448 NAIROBI 00800 Tel: +254 20 4242209 info@cck.go.ke<mailto:info@cck.go.ke> www.cck.go.ke<http://www.cck.go.ke> From: kictanet [mailto:kictanet-bounces+wambua=cck.go.ke@lists.kictanet.or.ke]<mailto:[mailto:kictanet-bounces+wambua=cck.go.ke@lists.kictanet.or.ke]> On Behalf Of Brian Munyao Longwe Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 2:46 PM To: Wambua, Christopher Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions Subject: Re: [kictanet] Thoughts on Kenya's National Broadband Strategy Hi all, I have just gone through the recently launched National Broadband Strategy. Sadly, none of my submitted input (included below) was accomodated (even after confirmation from CCK that they had been received). I guess this is a sign of the times, because it seems that over recent years "public consultations" by CCK and Govt on ICT issues have been merely stage-managed exercises aimed at giving an appearance of inclusion, but in reality are merely rubber-stamping exercises which allow largely third party driven agendas (vendors, foreign govts) to take center stage and prioritization in our strategies, policies, laws etc... I guess I will just have to stop making the effort to "contribute" to these processes as it seems to be pointless and an exercise in futility. Hopefully others will have better luck? Have a good day, Brian On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Brian Munyao Longwe <blongwe@gmail.com<mailto:blongwe@gmail.com>> wrote: I had shared these thoughts in ISOC-KE and someone asked if I would mind sharing them with KICTANET. Well, here goes: ------------ Is it right to explicitly name a particular technology within the context of such a high level strategy? Pg 6 ¬† the immediate plan to further deploy broadband through a nationwide LTE system The language in principle 2 (pg 8) and principle 7 (pg 9) seem to be contradictory. While principle 2 emphasizes technology neutrality (a good thing), principle 7 in elaborating competitive use of technologies explicitly names fiber optic and wireless broadband. It is proposed that the language here be changed to distinguish between fixed and non-fixed media as alternatives for infrastructure Pg 21 - the relationship between a pacemaker (for heart conditions) and content & applications is not immediately obvious - could this be the wrong kind of example to use in this section? Pg 22 (Table 4) on the problem of an unstructured innovation chain; wouldn't it be better to aim at developing a National Innovation System - rather than simply seeking to "institutionalize the innovation value chain"? The current recommendations fall far short of *really* tackling the underlying issues and proposing sufficient interventions to address the problem in the medium to long term. Pg 23 the figures related to mobile penetration should be updated with latest market estimates and not figures from 2011. Current estimates are at 100% mobile penetration. Also the percentage of *youth* is questionable as it is based on a 2005 study. Should statistics that are 8 years old be used in such an important document? pg 26-32 Section 3.4 Policy, Legal & Regulatory Environment While CCK has over the past 13 years of it's existence facilitated massive transformation with the information and communication technology sector in the country and the region as a whole. It could be argued that the Commission's mandate has become bloated over the years, leading to a "too many eggs in one basket" problem. It could be recommended that specialized agencies be established to deal with essential issue that do not strictly fall under the regulatory mandate of CCK and may, in some cases create opportunity for conflict of interest. These include but are not limited to: Operation and Administration of the Universal Service Fund, Operation and Administration of cyber-security related units, consumer protection etc... While it is evident and obvious that CCK has served and may continue to serve as an ideal "incubator" for these types of services/agencies. It is true that they encompass a potentially vast amount of work, especially within a national context and could be better served by specialized agencies that can focus time and resources and deal with issues in a focused and timely manner. pg 33 Section 3.5.2 by specifically referring to a particular technology (in this case LTE) as a means to accomplishing the objectives of this strategy - it might appear that the strategy is biased towards particular vendors or operators and may not necessarily be taking the best interests of the marketplace and the greatest stakeholder - the citizen - into consideration. It is recommended that the language in this section be reworked to eliminate the mention of specific technologies. The section on Financing and Investment should include recommendations on various incentives to promote activity in the area. Tax breaks, concessions, PPP proposals, allocations from various existing (and new) funds etc... Section 4 Implementation once again, specific reference to LTE may not be in the best interests of leaving the strategy open enought to allow for competing and maybe more affordable technologies that can achieve stated objectives.
Edith, I guess you are asking whether this was done for this specific consultation. We published a public notice on the NBS on 11th January 2013 giving 25th January 2013 as the deadline for submission of comments. The public notice, which was carried in the Nation and Standard newspapers, is available on our website at http://www.cck.go.ke/links/public_notices/2013/Broadband.pdf Christopher Wambua Manager – Communications Consumer and Public Affairs Department Communications Commission of Kenya P.O. Box 14448 NAIROBI 00800 Tel: +254 20 4242209 info@cck.go.ke<mailto:info@cck.go.ke> www.cck.go.ke<http://www.cck.go.ke> From: Edith Adera [mailto:eadera@idrc.ca] Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 1:22 PM To: Wambua, Christopher Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions Subject: RE: [kictanet] Thoughts on Kenya's National Broadband Strategy Chris, What’s is for this specific consultation? Edith From: Wambua, Christopher [mailto:Wambua@cck.go.ke]<mailto:[mailto:Wambua@cck.go.ke]> Sent: July 24, 2013 1:18 PM To: Edith Adera Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions Subject: RE: [kictanet] Thoughts on Kenya's National Broadband Strategy Edith, We usually provide the timelines for the consultations through the public notice published in the press, and the kictanet list. Christopher Wambua Manager – Communications Consumer and Public Affairs Department Communications Commission of Kenya P.O. Box 14448 NAIROBI 00800 Tel: +254 20 4242209 info@cck.go.ke<mailto:info@cck.go.ke> www.cck.go.ke<http://www.cck.go.ke> From: Edith Adera [mailto:eadera@idrc.ca]<mailto:[mailto:eadera@idrc.ca]> Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 12:31 PM To: Wambua, Christopher Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions Subject: RE: [kictanet] Thoughts on Kenya's National Broadband Strategy Chris, Is there a timeframe to provide comments? When does the window close? Edith From: kictanet [mailto:kictanet-bounces+eadera=idrc.ca@lists.kictanet.or.ke]<mailto:[mailto:kictanet-bounces+eadera=idrc.ca@lists.kictanet.or.ke]> On Behalf Of Wambua, Christopher Sent: July 24, 2013 8:00 AM To: Edith Adera Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions Subject: Re: [kictanet] Thoughts on Kenya's National Broadband Strategy Importance: High Brian/Listers, Many thanks for your feedback on the National Broadband Strategy that was launched yesterday. The Commission does not disregard stakeholders’ input on the various regulatory issues that we subject to public and stakeholder comment and consultation. On the issue of the National Broadband Strategy, all submitted comments were analyzed by the Committee spearheading the process, and the analysis uploaded onto our website at http://www.cck.go.ke/links/consultations/published_responses/Analysis_of_Dra... The analysis shows the position that the Committee took in respect to each and every submitted input. The analysis was posted onto our website after conclusion of the consultations to apprise stakeholders on the decisions that the Committee took in respect to submitted comments/inputs. In light of the foregoing, comments to the effect that the CCK does not take on board stakeholders’ input have no basis whatsoever. Have a lovely day. Best regards, Christopher Wambua Manager – Communications Consumer and Public Affairs Department Communications Commission of Kenya P.O. Box 14448 NAIROBI 00800 Tel: +254 20 4242209 info@cck.go.ke<mailto:info@cck.go.ke> www.cck.go.ke<http://www.cck.go.ke> From: kictanet [mailto:kictanet-bounces+wambua=cck.go.ke@lists.kictanet.or.ke]<mailto:[mailto:kictanet-bounces+wambua=cck.go.ke@lists.kictanet.or.ke]> On Behalf Of Brian Munyao Longwe Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 2:46 PM To: Wambua, Christopher Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions Subject: Re: [kictanet] Thoughts on Kenya's National Broadband Strategy Hi all, I have just gone through the recently launched National Broadband Strategy. Sadly, none of my submitted input (included below) was accomodated (even after confirmation from CCK that they had been received). I guess this is a sign of the times, because it seems that over recent years "public consultations" by CCK and Govt on ICT issues have been merely stage-managed exercises aimed at giving an appearance of inclusion, but in reality are merely rubber-stamping exercises which allow largely third party driven agendas (vendors, foreign govts) to take center stage and prioritization in our strategies, policies, laws etc... I guess I will just have to stop making the effort to "contribute" to these processes as it seems to be pointless and an exercise in futility. Hopefully others will have better luck? Have a good day, Brian On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Brian Munyao Longwe <blongwe@gmail.com<mailto:blongwe@gmail.com>> wrote: I had shared these thoughts in ISOC-KE and someone asked if I would mind sharing them with KICTANET. Well, here goes: ------------ Is it right to explicitly name a particular technology within the context of such a high level strategy? Pg 6 ¬† the immediate plan to further deploy broadband through a nationwide LTE system The language in principle 2 (pg 8) and principle 7 (pg 9) seem to be contradictory. While principle 2 emphasizes technology neutrality (a good thing), principle 7 in elaborating competitive use of technologies explicitly names fiber optic and wireless broadband. It is proposed that the language here be changed to distinguish between fixed and non-fixed media as alternatives for infrastructure Pg 21 - the relationship between a pacemaker (for heart conditions) and content & applications is not immediately obvious - could this be the wrong kind of example to use in this section? Pg 22 (Table 4) on the problem of an unstructured innovation chain; wouldn't it be better to aim at developing a National Innovation System - rather than simply seeking to "institutionalize the innovation value chain"? The current recommendations fall far short of *really* tackling the underlying issues and proposing sufficient interventions to address the problem in the medium to long term. Pg 23 the figures related to mobile penetration should be updated with latest market estimates and not figures from 2011. Current estimates are at 100% mobile penetration. Also the percentage of *youth* is questionable as it is based on a 2005 study. Should statistics that are 8 years old be used in such an important document? pg 26-32 Section 3.4 Policy, Legal & Regulatory Environment While CCK has over the past 13 years of it's existence facilitated massive transformation with the information and communication technology sector in the country and the region as a whole. It could be argued that the Commission's mandate has become bloated over the years, leading to a "too many eggs in one basket" problem. It could be recommended that specialized agencies be established to deal with essential issue that do not strictly fall under the regulatory mandate of CCK and may, in some cases create opportunity for conflict of interest. These include but are not limited to: Operation and Administration of the Universal Service Fund, Operation and Administration of cyber-security related units, consumer protection etc... While it is evident and obvious that CCK has served and may continue to serve as an ideal "incubator" for these types of services/agencies. It is true that they encompass a potentially vast amount of work, especially within a national context and could be better served by specialized agencies that can focus time and resources and deal with issues in a focused and timely manner. pg 33 Section 3.5.2 by specifically referring to a particular technology (in this case LTE) as a means to accomplishing the objectives of this strategy - it might appear that the strategy is biased towards particular vendors or operators and may not necessarily be taking the best interests of the marketplace and the greatest stakeholder - the citizen - into consideration. It is recommended that the language in this section be reworked to eliminate the mention of specific technologies. The section on Financing and Investment should include recommendations on various incentives to promote activity in the area. Tax breaks, concessions, PPP proposals, allocations from various existing (and new) funds etc... Section 4 Implementation once again, specific reference to LTE may not be in the best interests of leaving the strategy open enought to allow for competing and maybe more affordable technologies that can achieve stated objectives.
Hi Edith, The notice was shared and I also sent an email to this list long before the deadline encouraging a consolidated input and sharing my contributions. best regards, Brian On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Edith Adera <eadera@idrc.ca> wrote:
Chris,****
** **
Is there a timeframe to provide comments? When does the window close?****
** **
Edith****
** **
*From:* kictanet [mailto:kictanet-bounces+eadera= idrc.ca@lists.kictanet.or.ke] *On Behalf Of *Wambua, Christopher *Sent:* July 24, 2013 8:00 AM *To:* Edith Adera
*Cc:* KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions *Subject:* Re: [kictanet] Thoughts on Kenya's National Broadband Strategy *Importance:* High****
** **
Brian/Listers,****
** **
Many thanks for your feedback on the National Broadband Strategy that was launched yesterday. ****
** **
The Commission does not disregard stakeholders’ input on the various regulatory issues that we subject to public and stakeholder comment and consultation. On the issue of the National Broadband Strategy, all submitted comments were analyzed by the Committee spearheading the process, and the analysis uploaded onto our website at http://www.cck.go.ke/links/consultations/published_responses/Analysis_of_Dra... ****
** **
The analysis shows the position that the Committee took in respect to each and every submitted input. The analysis was posted onto our website after conclusion of the consultations to apprise stakeholders on the decisions that the Committee took in respect to submitted comments/inputs. ****
** **
In light of the foregoing, comments to the effect that the CCK does not take on board stakeholders’ input have no basis whatsoever. Have a lovely day. ****
** **
Best regards,****
** **
*Christopher Wambua*
*Manager – Communications*
*Consumer and Public Affairs Department*
*Communications Commission of Kenya*
*P.O. Box 14448 NAIROBI 00800*
*Tel: +254 20 4242209*
*info@cck.go.ke*
*www.cck.go.ke*
* *
** **
** **
*From:* kictanet [mailto:kictanet-bounces+wambua=cck.go.ke@lists.kictanet.or.ke] *On Behalf Of *Brian Munyao Longwe *Sent:* Tuesday, July 23, 2013 2:46 PM *To:* Wambua, Christopher *Cc:* KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions *Subject:* Re: [kictanet] Thoughts on Kenya's National Broadband Strategy* ***
** **
Hi all,****
** **
I have just gone through the recently launched National Broadband Strategy. ****
** **
Sadly, none of my submitted input (included below) was accomodated (even after confirmation from CCK that they had been received). I guess this is a sign of the times, because it seems that over recent years "public consultations" by CCK and Govt on ICT issues have been merely stage-managed exercises aimed at giving an appearance of inclusion, but in reality are merely rubber-stamping exercises which allow largely third party driven agendas (vendors, foreign govts) to take center stage and prioritization in our strategies, policies, laws etc...****
** **
I guess I will just have to stop making the effort to "contribute" to these processes as it seems to be pointless and an exercise in futility. Hopefully others will have better luck?****
** **
Have a good day,****
** **
Brian****
** **
** **
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Brian Munyao Longwe <blongwe@gmail.com> wrote:****
I had shared these thoughts in ISOC-KE and someone asked if I would mind sharing them with KICTANET. Well, here goes:
------------
Is it right to explicitly name a particular technology within the context of such a high level strategy? Pg 6   the immediate plan to further deploy broadband through a nationwide LTE system
The language in principle 2 (pg 8) and principle 7 (pg 9) seem to be contradictory. While principle 2 emphasizes technology neutrality (a good thing), principle 7 in elaborating competitive use of technologies explicitly names fiber optic and wireless broadband. It is proposed that the language here be changed to distinguish between fixed and non-fixed media as alternatives for infrastructure
Pg 21 - the relationship between a pacemaker (for heart conditions) and content & applications is not immediately obvious - could this be the wrong kind of example to use in this section?
Pg 22 (Table 4) on the problem of an unstructured innovation chain; wouldn't it be better to aim at developing a National Innovation System - rather than simply seeking to "institutionalize the innovation value chain"? The current recommendations fall far short of *really* tackling the underlying issues and proposing sufficient interventions to address the problem in the medium to long term.
Pg 23 the figures related to mobile penetration should be updated with latest market estimates and not figures from 2011. Current estimates are at 100% mobile penetration. Also the percentage of *youth* is questionable as it is based on a 2005 study. Should statistics that are 8 years old be used in such an important document?
pg 26-32 Section 3.4 Policy, Legal & Regulatory Environment
While CCK has over the past 13 years of it's existence facilitated massive transformation with the information and communication technology sector in the country and the region as a whole. It could be argued that the Commission's mandate has become bloated over the years, leading to a "too many eggs in one basket" problem.
It could be recommended that specialized agencies be established to deal with essential issue that do not strictly fall under the regulatory mandate of CCK and may, in some cases create opportunity for conflict of interest. These include but are not limited to: Operation and Administration of the Universal Service Fund, Operation and Administration of cyber-security related units, consumer protection etc...
While it is evident and obvious that CCK has served and may continue to serve as an ideal "incubator" for these types of services/agencies. It is true that they encompass a potentially vast amount of work, especially within a national context and could be better served by specialized agencies that can focus time and resources and deal with issues in a focused and timely manner.
pg 33 Section 3.5.2
by specifically referring to a particular technology (in this case LTE) as a means to accomplishing the objectives of this strategy - it might appear that the strategy is biased towards particular vendors or operators and may not necessarily be taking the best interests of the marketplace and the greatest stakeholder - the citizen - into consideration. It is recommended that the language in this section be reworked to eliminate the mention of specific technologies.
The section on Financing and Investment should include recommendations on various incentives to promote activity in the area. Tax breaks, concessions, PPP proposals, allocations from various existing (and new) funds etc...
Section 4 Implementation
once again, specific reference to LTE may not be in the best interests of leaving the strategy open enought to allow for competing and maybe more affordable technologies that can achieve stated objectives.
****
** **
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/blongwe%40gmail.com
The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
It seemed to have passed through the cracks! (although I was aware of the process starting in the very early stages…didn’t keep pace with the status). Like we’ve done in the past on this list (courtesy of excellent moderation by the likes of Walu, Barrack etc), I think we should encourage structured/moderated discussion on the list on such important issues. CCK should consider that in future. We’ve done it effectively on this list before and comments collated and submitted. That could be in addition to individual contributions. Some unfortunately missed the boat! Congrats all the same CCK in have a strategy in place. We look forward to FULL implementation. Edith From: Brian Munyao Longwe [mailto:blongwe@gmail.com] Sent: July 24, 2013 1:45 PM To: Edith Adera; KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions Subject: Re: [kictanet] Thoughts on Kenya's National Broadband Strategy Hi Edith, The notice was shared and I also sent an email to this list long before the deadline encouraging a consolidated input and sharing my contributions. best regards, Brian On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Edith Adera <eadera@idrc.ca<mailto:eadera@idrc.ca>> wrote: Chris, Is there a timeframe to provide comments? When does the window close? Edith From: kictanet [mailto:kictanet-bounces+eadera<mailto:kictanet-bounces%2Beadera>=idrc.ca@lists.kictanet.or.ke<mailto:idrc.ca@lists.kictanet.or.ke>] On Behalf Of Wambua, Christopher Sent: July 24, 2013 8:00 AM To: Edith Adera Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions Subject: Re: [kictanet] Thoughts on Kenya's National Broadband Strategy Importance: High Brian/Listers, Many thanks for your feedback on the National Broadband Strategy that was launched yesterday. The Commission does not disregard stakeholders’ input on the various regulatory issues that we subject to public and stakeholder comment and consultation. On the issue of the National Broadband Strategy, all submitted comments were analyzed by the Committee spearheading the process, and the analysis uploaded onto our website at http://www.cck.go.ke/links/consultations/published_responses/Analysis_of_Dra... The analysis shows the position that the Committee took in respect to each and every submitted input. The analysis was posted onto our website after conclusion of the consultations to apprise stakeholders on the decisions that the Committee took in respect to submitted comments/inputs. In light of the foregoing, comments to the effect that the CCK does not take on board stakeholders’ input have no basis whatsoever. Have a lovely day. Best regards, Christopher Wambua Manager – Communications Consumer and Public Affairs Department Communications Commission of Kenya P.O. Box 14448 NAIROBI 00800 Tel: +254 20 4242209<tel:%2B254%2020%204242209> info@cck.go.ke<mailto:info@cck.go.ke> www.cck.go.ke<http://www.cck.go.ke> From: kictanet [mailto:kictanet-bounces+wambua=cck.go.ke@lists.kictanet.or.ke]<mailto:[mailto:kictanet-bounces+wambua=cck.go.ke@lists.kictanet.or.ke]> On Behalf Of Brian Munyao Longwe Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 2:46 PM To: Wambua, Christopher Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions Subject: Re: [kictanet] Thoughts on Kenya's National Broadband Strategy Hi all, I have just gone through the recently launched National Broadband Strategy. Sadly, none of my submitted input (included below) was accomodated (even after confirmation from CCK that they had been received). I guess this is a sign of the times, because it seems that over recent years "public consultations" by CCK and Govt on ICT issues have been merely stage-managed exercises aimed at giving an appearance of inclusion, but in reality are merely rubber-stamping exercises which allow largely third party driven agendas (vendors, foreign govts) to take center stage and prioritization in our strategies, policies, laws etc... I guess I will just have to stop making the effort to "contribute" to these processes as it seems to be pointless and an exercise in futility. Hopefully others will have better luck? Have a good day, Brian On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Brian Munyao Longwe <blongwe@gmail.com<mailto:blongwe@gmail.com>> wrote: I had shared these thoughts in ISOC-KE and someone asked if I would mind sharing them with KICTANET. Well, here goes: ------------ Is it right to explicitly name a particular technology within the context of such a high level strategy? Pg 6 ¬† the immediate plan to further deploy broadband through a nationwide LTE system The language in principle 2 (pg 8) and principle 7 (pg 9) seem to be contradictory. While principle 2 emphasizes technology neutrality (a good thing), principle 7 in elaborating competitive use of technologies explicitly names fiber optic and wireless broadband. It is proposed that the language here be changed to distinguish between fixed and non-fixed media as alternatives for infrastructure Pg 21 - the relationship between a pacemaker (for heart conditions) and content & applications is not immediately obvious - could this be the wrong kind of example to use in this section? Pg 22 (Table 4) on the problem of an unstructured innovation chain; wouldn't it be better to aim at developing a National Innovation System - rather than simply seeking to "institutionalize the innovation value chain"? The current recommendations fall far short of *really* tackling the underlying issues and proposing sufficient interventions to address the problem in the medium to long term. Pg 23 the figures related to mobile penetration should be updated with latest market estimates and not figures from 2011. Current estimates are at 100% mobile penetration. Also the percentage of *youth* is questionable as it is based on a 2005 study. Should statistics that are 8 years old be used in such an important document? pg 26-32 Section 3.4 Policy, Legal & Regulatory Environment While CCK has over the past 13 years of it's existence facilitated massive transformation with the information and communication technology sector in the country and the region as a whole. It could be argued that the Commission's mandate has become bloated over the years, leading to a "too many eggs in one basket" problem. It could be recommended that specialized agencies be established to deal with essential issue that do not strictly fall under the regulatory mandate of CCK and may, in some cases create opportunity for conflict of interest. These include but are not limited to: Operation and Administration of the Universal Service Fund, Operation and Administration of cyber-security related units, consumer protection etc... While it is evident and obvious that CCK has served and may continue to serve as an ideal "incubator" for these types of services/agencies. It is true that they encompass a potentially vast amount of work, especially within a national context and could be better served by specialized agencies that can focus time and resources and deal with issues in a focused and timely manner. pg 33 Section 3.5.2 by specifically referring to a particular technology (in this case LTE) as a means to accomplishing the objectives of this strategy - it might appear that the strategy is biased towards particular vendors or operators and may not necessarily be taking the best interests of the marketplace and the greatest stakeholder - the citizen - into consideration. It is recommended that the language in this section be reworked to eliminate the mention of specific technologies. The section on Financing and Investment should include recommendations on various incentives to promote activity in the area. Tax breaks, concessions, PPP proposals, allocations from various existing (and new) funds etc... Section 4 Implementation once again, specific reference to LTE may not be in the best interests of leaving the strategy open enought to allow for competing and maybe more affordable technologies that can achieve stated objectives. _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke<mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/blongwe%40gmail.com The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development. KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
participants (8)
-
Ali Hussein -
Barrack Otieno -
Brian Munyao Longwe -
Edith Adera -
James Mbugua -
Judy M. Muli -
Walubengo J -
Wambua, Christopher